LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



Chap. Copyright So. 

Sheli&V.5.0J3 

^ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 




JAMES RENWICK DILL. 



THE 



Saloon a Nuisance 



AND 



License Unconstitutional 



THE AUTHOR 

OF 

THE REFORM INSTITUTE 

IN 

CHRISTIAN CITIZENSHIP 



1900 



TWO COPIES RECEIVED, 

Library of Cenge M % 

Mfil-1900 

«»fl«tor of Copyright* 






55861 

Dedicated to the Cause 

of 
PROHIBITION. 



a&coho L*i.';', 



Copyright, 1899 
by 

J. K. DILL 






-HHh^ 



XJT"HIS little volume is designed to be a steno- 
^| graphic report of the proceedings of a 
presumable case in the United States 
Supreme Court, in which the traffic in intoxi- 
cating drink receives the death-blow. The scene 
carries us into the future, and may be regarded 
as prophetical of that which must shortly come 
to pass. 



^##^ 



-r~H 



H r 

H-+ 
-f+ 



+-H 



-4-4! 



.NATIONAU^ 
PERSONAL +T> INTEREST 

= DEMANDS 



o 

O 

CD 



-«— » 
co 

CO 



e 

o 

CD 

t-i 



ABSOLUTE 

♦ ♦ 

I MEDIATE 

AND 

UHGONDlTIOJlfllt 



■ »s 


■ W\ 


*0 


>"> 


CJ 


^a 


EJ 


o 


cu 


Q3 


^ 


^! 


hH 


M 



.2 

CO 

o 
o 

-> 

CD 



PROHIBITION 





• «s 




HI 


• »s 


O 


^^* 


■ ■■«■ 


o 


H* 




CO 


^i 


z=> 


S3 


•-D 






3C 

EC 

■ccr 



flGGORDflrlCE 

WITH THE 

BIBLE 

AND THE 

PREAMBLE 



tq 
to 



OF 

THE 



UU 
Get 



CO 



11 CONSTITUTION. 

+ _^ ^: ~~~~ 



The Diagram. 

That the Traffic in intoxicating drinks should 
be abolished, is not a question with intelligent 
people. 

That this Traffic will be eliminated from society 
is not a question w 7 ith those w 7 ho have faith in 
God and believe His Word. 

The Nation cannot enjoy true prosperity as long 
as the saloon taps the resources of her w r ealth and 
saps the virtues of her manhood. 

The Home is defenceless against merciless 
wrongs and greatest griefs, w T hile this unholy 
trade flings its shadow over the threshold of the 
family. 

Personal honor is imperiled, character is men- 
aced, purity is treading on the edge of mire, 
w 7 here the Bar offers its inducements to the appe- 
tite. 

The claims of Prohibition are sustained by the 
spirit of the Preamble of the United States Con- 
stitution, as the clauses all join in a grand chorus, 
pleading for the welfare of the Nation. 

The Constitution, when squared w T ith the 
Divine Law, and guarding all the interests of 
man, will give expression against this trade, 
which is the Nation's curse and the world's blot. 



Bible studies 

ON 

Prohibition. 

The sorrows of the drunkard. — Prove? r bs 23 : 

20-35- 

The vain attempt to make the drink trade right 
by Law. — Isaiah 5 : 18-25. 

Woes pronounced upon those who revel in 
High License. — Isaiah 28 : 1-15. 

The drunkard's doom. — Galatians 5 ; 19-21. 

A woe for the man who treats his fellow to 
strong drink. — Habakknk 2 : 15-17. 

The Divine cure for drunkenness. — Ephesians 
5 : 1 1-2 1. 

Temperance habits give beaut}^ and strength to 
character. — Daniel 1 : 8-21. 

The duty of the Church to keep herself sepa- 
rate ; to have no complicity with, or responsibility 
for, the unclean thing. — II Corinthians 6 : 1^-18. 

The duty of the State to suppress the Trade in 
intoxicants. — Romayis 13 : 3-6. 

The Triumph of Prohibition principles assured. 
— Isaiah 11 : 1-10. 



The Saloon a Nuisance 

AND 

License Unconstitutional* 

10™ *&^* t&r* 

The Saloon a fiuisanee. 

" When God speaks, let all the earth keep silent 
before Him." His judgments are perfect and He 
makes no mistakes. Every interest of His King- 
dom must remain permanently secure even when 
His providences relating thereto are passive. His 
enemies may indeed protest, but it will not effect 
the execution of His purpose. When in course of 
human events, He demonstrates His will, the 
acquiescent faith of His children should lead 
them to say, l< Amen, — so it shall be." 

For many generations the liquor traffic had 
been insidiously and aggressively establishing 
itself, until it became so interwoven with the 
usages and customs of the people, that it was 
generally regarded as a necessary and component 
part of the very fabric of our civilization. When 
the supreme moment arrived, and the chief tri- 
bunal of our country with unanimous decision 
declared the saloon to be a nuisance and license 



THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



unconstitutional, the announcement fell upon the 
ears of astonished millions like a thunder-clap 
from a clear sky. It is our purpose to call atten- 
tion to the novel procedure of the case in its last 
hearing, which resulted in the complete overthrow 
of the liquor traffic. We are confident that our 
readers in the perusal of the following pages, will 
acquiesce in the decision that the saloon was a 
public nuisance, both in the legal and moral sense, 
and that its license was unconstitutional. 



R Public Nuisance Defined. 

A public nuisance may exist either in a legal 
or a moral sense. A public nuisance in a legal 
sense is, " that which annoys, offends and incon- 
veniences any great number of persons in a 
locality ; or, that which tends to damage the 
health, the industrial life, or the property of any 
great number of persons in a locality.' ' A public 
nuisance in a moral sense is, "that which tends 
to corrupt the morals of any great number of 
persons in a locality." If we be able to establish 
the fact, that the licensed saloon thus damaged 
great numbers of persons in localities, we shall 
have succeeded in establishing our first proposi- 
tion. 

The case which our narrative unfolds was 
concluded (let us assume) December 20th, 19 19, 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 



and the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court 
was published January ist, 1920. The following 
purports to be the report of the proceedings as 
recorded by the chief clerk. The report naturally 
divides itself into sections. 

SECTION I. 

Change of the Chief Justice. 

The Supreme Court will require you, the chief 
advocate of license and leading witness in the 
defense, to answer all proper questions propounded 
by the prosecuting attorney to the extent of your 
ability. You should be able to make known to 
the court, the reasons why the many limitations 
and prohibitory restrictions have been placed in 
the text of the various license measures by the 
friends and promoters of license. The cross- 
examination should result in the perfect dissecting 
of the license measures, exposing to public view 
the real reason for each restriction. The novelty 
of the case before us has led the court to the con- 
clusion to try the case all over again, according 
to the method of the lower courts, instead of con- 
ducting the same directly from the brief by which 
the case was conveyed to us. When the case is 
finished, we will be able to prepare and hand 
down a just and equitable decision. The Prose- 
cuting Attorney will now proceed to re-conduct 
the cross-examination. 



8 THE SALQQN A X USANCE 

SECTION II. 
Cross-Examination. 

Prosecuting Attorney. What parties, in 
their national organizations, have persistently 
continued to license the liquor traffic ? 

Advocate of License. The Republican and 
Democratic parties. 

P. A. Who encouraged said parties to cling to 
the license policy ? 

A. of Iy. Saloon-keepers, gamblers, operators 
of brothels, anarchists, and many professing 
Christians. 

P. A. How did the classes enumerated encour- 
age the parties named in such iniquity ? 

A. of L. By their influence and their ballots. 

P. A. How did the two great parties always 
speak in reference to the principle of prohibition ? 

A. of L. They denounced the principle of 
prohibition as, "sumptuary legislation," and 
"unjust interference with men's liberty." 

P. A. How did they speak in reference to the 
principle of license ? 

A. of Iy. They upheld the principle of license 
as "opposition to sumptuary legislation," and as 
"all-wise, wholesome and well-directed temper- 
ance measures." 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 



P. A. What did prohibitionists purpose doing 
with the saloon ? 

A. of L. They pledged themselves to destroy 
the saloon, claiming for their encouragement 
that God is pledged to destroy the works of the 
devil. 

P. A. Why did the general government con- 
tinue to encourage the extensive manufacture and 
sale of intoxicating liquor as a beverage ? 

A. of L. Because it was made senior partner 
in the business, and received part of the profits in 
an internal revenue. 

P. A. Why did the several States continue to 
favor the license policy ? 

A. of L,. Iyike the general government, they 
also became partners in the business, and received 
a part of the profits. 

P. A. Why did the municipalities favor the 
multiplication of saloons ? 

A. of L,. The municipalities received a large 
revenue from each saloon, and the more saloons, 
the greater their share of the profits. 

P. A. Why did saloon-keepers, gamblers, 
operators of brothels, anarchists, and many pro- 
fessing Christians, in the joint use of the ballot, 
continue to support license and license parties ? 

A. of Iy. The classes mentioned knew that 
their various occupations could grow and flourish 
only through the use of intoxicating drinks. 



10 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 

Moreover, many professing Christians tried to 
persuade themselves that the saloon could never 
be destroyed ; that the prohibitory or restrictive 
features of the license measures had rendered the 
business respectable ; and that the revenue derived 
from the business had lessened their taxes. 

P. A. Who is permitted to engage in the 
retail liquor business, under the so-called statutes, 
ostensibly enacted for the regulation of the traffic ? 

A. of ly. The statutes enacted for the regulat- 
ing of the retail liquor traffic, expressly require 
that persons of good moral character only be 
permitted to operate the licensed saloons. 

P. A. How do the friends of license assure the 
people of any locality that such is the character 
of the applicant ? 

A. of L,. The statutes require that the good 
moral character of the applicant shall be attested 
by the testimony of two good freeholders, each 
worth, at least, two thousand dollars. 

P. A. Do the friends and promotors of license 
follow a similar method, in an attempt to satisfy 
the citizens of a locality, as to the good moral 
character of persons engaging in other lines of 
business ? 

A. of L,. I never heard of such a thing. 

P. A. For what purpose is the license granted ? 



AND LICEXSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 11 



A. of L. It authorizes the applicant to sell 
intoxicating liquor, at retail, as a beverage. 

P. A. Is the retail liquor traffic a legitimate 
business when licensed ? 

A. of L. I think it is quite generally so 
regarded. 

P. A. Is it lawful for a person to engage in 
the retail liquor traffic, without first securing a 
license from the State or municipality ? 

A. of L,. I think not. 

P. A. Is it lawful for a person to engage in 
the retail meat business, without first securing a 
license from the State or municipality ? 

A. ofL. Certainly it is ; but the retail liquor 
traffic is not like any other business. 

P. A. How are retail liquor houses that pre- 
sume to sell without license designated ? 

A. of L. They are familiarly spoken of as 
4 ' speak-easies, " " joints, M ' ' holes-in-the-wall, ' ' 
etc.; whilst individuals, who, in a still more 
secret way, smuggle the beverage, are often 
called ' ' boot-leggers. ' ' 

P. A. Would it be appropriate, for the friends 
and promoters of license, to designate other kinds 
of business by similar names, when the operators 
thereof presume to sell without license ? 

A. of L. I think not; but I believe every 
person is familiar with the fact that the retail 
liquor traffic is not like any other business. 



12 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



P. A. Why do the friends and promoters of 
license, by explicit restrictions, which they have 
placed in the text of the measures enacted for the 
regulating of the retail liquor traffic, prohibit the 
saloon from locating nearer than two hundred, 
three hundred, or four hundred feet from a church 
or school in cities, or within one half-mile of the 
same in country places ? 

A. of L. I presume the restrictions referred to 
were placed in the text of the laws to prevent the 
saloon from becoming a source of annoyance, 
offense, or inconvenience to the church or school. 

P. A. Do you consider the word " nuisance" 
an equivalent for the following phrase : ' ' that 
which annoys, offends, and inconveniences 
people ? " 

A. of L. I humbly beg the court not to press 
that question. 

Chief Justice. The question is relevant, and 
the prosecuting attorney is at liberty to repeat 
the same. 

P. A. Do you regard the word " nuisance " 
as an equivalent for the phrase, "that which 
annoys, offends, and inconveniences people " ? 

A. ofL. I do. 

P. A. Do the friends and promoters of license 
designate a grocery store by such a term, when it 
is located nearer than two hundred, three hundred, 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 13 

or four hundred feet from a church or school in 
cities, or nearer than one-half mile from the same 
in country places ? 

A. of L. They do not. They call it a grocery 
store. It is always a grocery store, no matter 
where it be located. 

P. A. Will you please inform the court why 
the unlicensed grocery store does not become a 
public nuisance, when located within any of the 
prescribed distances from a church or school ? 

A. of L. Because the grocery store does not 
" annoy, offend, and inconvenience people." But 
I wish to emphasize the fact that the saloon is 
not like any other business. This being once 
rightly understood, to my mind, would seem to 
justify special and peculiar legislation for the 
regulating of the saloon, both as to location and 
the manner of operating the same. 

P. A. Does the licensed saloon cease to 
"annoy, offend, and inconvenience people," when 
located outside any one of the prescribed distances 
from a church or school ? 

A. of L. Not exactly ; but the licensed saloon 
is permitted to locate outside certain of the 
prescribed distances from a church or school, by 
the consent of a majority of the freeholders on 
both sides of the street. 

P. A. Does such action on the part of the 
freeholders relieve the situation ? 



14 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



A. of I y . I do not see that it does. 

P. A. Our attention was directed a short time 
ago to the matter of speak-easies. How do the 
proprietors of speak-easies usually operate their 
business ? 

A. of L. With as much precaution as that 
with which horse-thieves steal horses. 

P. A. Why do States and municipalities pro- 
hibit the operators of speak-easies from selling 
intoxicating liquor as a beverage ? 

A. of L. Because the operators of speak-easies 
are unwilling to receive the general government, 
the State and the municipality into partnership, 
and to share with them the profits. 

P. A. What would you advise the State to do 
with the operators of speak-easies ? 

A. of Iy. Denounce them as anarchists, and 
disfranchise them forever. 

P. A. Wherein do licensed saloons differ from 
unlicensed saloons, which are commonly called 
" speak-easies " ? 

A. of L. The proprietor of the licensed saloon 
receives the general government, the State and 
municipality into partnership, inasmuch as they 
are made to share in the profits ; while the pro- 
prietor of the speak-easy appropriates all the 
profits unto himself. 

P. A. What is the difference between speak- 
easy whiskey and licensed rum, as to their effects ? 



RND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 15 

A. of Iy. They are both alike, as to their 
effects. 

P. A. Is the proprietor of the licensed saloon 
permitted to sell to every person, when his place 
of business is located at the proper distance from 
a church or school ? 

A. of Iv. He is not. 

P. A. To whom is he permitted to sell, and 
for what portion of the year ? 

A. of L. To compas mentis seniors only ; and 
three hundred and twelve days in the year only ; 
and while they are occasional or frequent drinkers 
only. When they become habitual drunkards, 
the bartender is permitted to sell to them no 
longer. 

P. A. To what particular classes of persons 
are saloon-keepers prohibited from selling ; and 
for what portion of the year are the prohibitory 
restrictions operative. 

A. of Iy. Saloon-keepers are prohibited from 
selling to idiots, insane persons, Indians, minors, 
and habitual drunkards. The prohibitory restric- 
tions relating to these classes cover the entire 
year. 

P. A. Are the above restrictions, relating to 
the classes enumerated, not equivalent to that 
peculiar form of legislation, which the friends and 
promotors of license denounce as, " Kansas pro- 



16 THE SA LOON A Nl ISA NCE 

hibition," ''sumptuary legislation," and "unjust 
interference with men's liberty " ? 

A. of Iv. I presume it is. 

P. A. Who then are its authors ? 

A. of L. All those persons in the State and 
nation who in any way participate in the enact- 
ment of the license measures. 

P. A. If the restrictive features of the license 
measures, relating to certain classes all the year, 
and to the rest of mankind a creditable part of the 
year, be strictly enforced, does it not actually 
commit the friends of license to the principle of 
prohibition, which they habitually denounce as 
''sumptuary legislation," and " unjust 'interfer- 
ence with men's liberty." 

A. of L. I must confess it does. But it seems 
to me that the restrictive features of the license 
measures w r ere embodied in the text of the law 
merely for political effect. The operators of the 
saloons have come to feel that the prohibitory 
restrictions were never designed to be strictly 
enforced. Our shrewd politicians may have 
intended the prohibitory restrictions of the license 
measures as an opiate for Christian consciences, 
to hold them in allegiance to the dominant license 
parties, rather than for the protection of the above- 
named classes. 

P. A. Is it true, then, that the friends and 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 17 

promoters of license, who all the time claim to 
stand in opposition to the principle of prohibition, 
which they bitterly denounce as ''sumptuary 
legislation,' ' and "unjust interference with men's 
liberty," have actually adopted the principle of 
prohibition — " sumptuary legislation," and " un- 
just interference with men's liberty" — for the 
protection of certain classes of persons covering 
the entire year, and for all the rest of mankind a 
creditable part of the year ? 

A. of L. Ostensibly it is true ; but as I have 
already stated, I am of the opinion that the 
restrictive or prohibitory features of the license 
measures were intended more as an opiate for 
Christian consciences, than as a means for the 
protection of the classes named. The question as 
it is put, however, seems strange to an advocate 
of license. I never heard it stated that way 
before. 

P. A. How do the friends of license make 
known their desire for this peculiar form of legis- 
lation ? 

A. of L. By explicit prohibitory restrictions, 
which they have placed in the text of the various 
license measures. 

P. A. Will you please inform the court, in a 
clearer light, if possible, how the friends and 
promoters of license speak in reference to the 



18 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



measures which they have enacted for the regulat- 
ing of the retail liquor traffic ? 

A. of L. The enactments which they have 
chosen for the regulating of the retail liquor 
traffic are continually spoken of as, ''opposition 
to sumptuary legislation," "all-wise, wholesome 
and well-directed temperance measures," etc. 

P. A. If we accept these definitions as correct, 
are we not justifiable then in asserting that the 
friends of license approve of that which they are 
accustomed to denounce as ' ( sumptuary legisla- 
tion," and "unjust interference with men's 
liberty," as of paramount importance for the pro- 
tection of certain classes covering the entire year, 
and for the protection of all the people a credit- 
able part of the year ? 

A. of L. Presented in the light in which you 
have placed the matter, I presume we would be 
justifiable in arriving at such a conclusion. It 
forms a strange anomaly, at least, which I confess 
I am unable to explain. 

P. A. I will now ask you to tell the court the 
real reasons why the friends of license have 
enacted prohibition — "sumptuary legislation," 
"unjust interference with men's liberty" — for 
certain classes all the year, and for all the people 
a creditable part of the }^ear ? 

A. of Iy. We may assume for their protection. 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 19 



P. A. Whom do they thus protect first of all? 

A. of L. The idiot. There is an explicit pro- 
hibitory restriction in the text of the various 
license measures, forbidding the retail liquor men 
to sell to the idiot. This commendable restriction 
covers the entire year. 

P. A. Who is an idiot? 

A. of L. The born fool. 

P. A. Is it true then that the friends and 
promoters of license have adopted the principle of 
prohibition, which they denounce as " sumptuary 
legislation,'' and " unjust interference with men's 
liberty," for the protection of the idiot, covering 
the entire year ? 

A. of L. It is true. 

P. A. What reason could the friends and 
promoters of license have had in mind for resort- 
ing to such legislation for the idiot ? 

A. of L. They must have had in mind the 
fact that the idiot or born fool is a feeble-minded 
person, and is in such constant need of a custodian, 
that the principle of prohibition is better suited to 
protect him than the principle of license. 

P. A. Would it not be well to prohibit other 
business men from selling to the idiot ? Why not 
enact a uniform law, prohibiting persons from 
selling meat, sugar, or clothing and other kinds 
of merchandise to the idiot or born fool ? 



20 THE SALOOX A XUISAXCE 



A. of L,. I am under the necessity of answer- 
ing this question by repeating my answer to a 
former question. It is not necessary to prohibit 
persons in all lines of business from selling to the 
idiot, for the reason that the retail liquor traffic is 
not like any other business. 

P. A. Why do the friends and promoters of 
license first openly declare themselves in opposi- 
tion to the principle of prohibition, which they 
denounce as " sumptuary legislation," and "un- 
just interference with men's liberty," and after- 
ward embody the same principle in the text of the 
various license measures for the protection of the 
insane person ? 

A. of L. They may have had in mind the fact 
that if it requires one person all the time to hold 
an insane person in safe custod}^ when he is sober, 
it would no doubt require more persons to prevent 
him from annoying people if he was intoxicated. 

P. A. Why do the friends of license — the 
enemies of prohibition — adopt the principle of 
prohibition for the protection of the Indian, cover- 
ing the entire year ? 

A. of L. I presume I would be justifiable in 
saying that the friends of license must have been 
well satisfied, in their minds, that the principle of 
prohibition, when carefully applied and enforced, 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 21 



is better suited to the protection of the Indian, 
than the principle of license. At any rate, I will 
venture this as their reason for inserting the 
principle of prohibition in the text of the law for 
the protection of the Indian, rather than the 
principle of license. 

P. A. Why do the friends and promoters of 
license denounce the principle of prohibition as 
1 ' sumptuary legislation, ' ' and ' ' unj ust inter- 
ference with men's liberty," and everywhere 
adopt the same for minors ? 

A. of L. For their protection, no doubt. It 
seems to be the only means to effectually shield 
both parents and children from being annoyed by 
the retail liquor traffic. 

P. A. How long do they thus claim to protect 
our boys and girls ? 

A. of Iy. Until they shall have arrived at their 
majority. 

P, A. Have the friends of license, in any 
manner, adopted the principle of prohibition — 
11 sumptuary legislation," and "unjust interfer- 
ence with men's liberty, ' ' for the regular customers 
of the licensed saloons ? 

A. of L,. I cannot see very clearly that they 
have? 

P. A. Have they not adopted the principle of 



22 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



prohibition — " sumptuary legislation," and " un- 
just interference with men's liberty," for the 
protection of the habitual drunkard ? 

A. of L. They claim to prohibit the retail 
liquor men from selling to the habitual drunkard. 

P. A. Do you not see that you might be able 
to demonstrate to the court that the habitual 
drunkard is the regular customer of the saloon ? 

A. of L. I do not see the process very clearly 
by which to demonstrate that fact. 

P. A. If the licensed saloon has any regular 
customer at all, don't you think the habitual 
drunkard must be quite as regular as any ? 

A. of L. I presume he is, at least up to the 
time when the retail liquor men are prohibited 
from selling to him. 

P. A. If you were to use a synonym for the 
term, "habitual drunkard," how would you 
express yourself ? 

A. of L. I would call him a manufactured 
fool. 

P. A. Is it true that the friends and promoters 
of license have adopted the principle of prohibi- 
tion — "sumptuary legislation," and "unjust 
interference with men's liberty, ' ' for every person ? 

A. of L,. I presume they have, a part of the 
time at least. 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 23 



P. A. Wherein then lies the difference be- 
tween the principle of prohibition — "sumptuary 
legislation," and "unjust interference with men's 
liberty," and license — "all wise, wholesome and 
well-directed temperance measures ' ' ? 

A. of L. I humbly beg the court not to press 
that question. 

Chief Justice. The court will waive the 
question. 

P. A. Wherein then do prohibitionists and 
license advocates differ ? 

A. of L. Prohibitionists favor the principle of 
prohibition for all the people all the time ; while 
license advocates favor the same for certain classes 
all the time, and for the rest of mankind a credit- 
able part of the time. 

P. A. (To the Chief Justice. ) This closes the 
cross-examination of the chief advocate of license. 
I trust your honor is satisfied not only with my 
candor in propounding the questions, but also 
with the straightforward manner in which the 
chief advocate of license has attempted to answer 
them. I have no desire to question the witness 
further. Therefore, after briefly summing up the 
evidence, I shall be ready to proceed with the clos- 
ing argument in the prosecution. 



24 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



SECTION III. 

Summing up the Evidence. 

I gather from the cross-examination of the chief 
advocate of license, and the leading witness in the 
defense, the following evidence : That the Repub- 
lican and Democratic parties, in their national 
organizations, continued to favor the licensing 
of the liquor traffic ; that saloon-keepers, gamblers, 
operators of brothels, anarchists, and many pro- 
fessing Christians, in the joint use of the ballot, 
encouraged said parties to cling to the license 
policy ; that the above-named parties continued to 
denounce the principle of prohibition as, "sumptu- 
ary legislation," and "unjust interference with 
men's liberty " ; that they upheld the principle of 
license, as "opposition to sumptuary legislation," 
and as " all- wise, wholesome and well-directed 
temperance measures" ; that prohibitionists had 
pledged themselves to destroy the saloon ; that 
the general government continued to encourage 
the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, because it 
was made senior partner in the business and 
received a part of the profits in an internal 
revenue ; that the several States encouraged the 
license policy, because they too were made part- 
ners in the business and received a share of the 
profits ; that municipalities favored the multi- 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 25 



plication of saloons, because they received a large 
revenue from each saloon, and the more saloons, 
the greater their share of the profits ; that saloon- 
keepers, gamblers, operators of brothels, anarch- 
ists, and many professing Christians continued to 
favor the plan of license, because the characters 
first mentioned knew that their various occupa- 
tions could only grow and flourish in the midst 
of the profuse use of intoxicating drinks ; more- 
over, many professing Christians tried to persuade , 
themselves that the saloon could never be de- 
stroyed ; that the prohibitory or restrictive 
features of the license measures had rendered 
the business respectable ; and that the revenue 
derived from the business had lessened their 
taxes ; that according to the measures enacted 
for the regulating of the traffic, persons of good 
moral character only are authorized to engage in 
the retail liquor traffic ; that the character of the 
applicant shall be established to the satisfaction 
of the license court, by the testimony of two good 
freeholders, each worth at least two thousand 
dollars ; that the friends of license do not follow a 
similar method in discovering the good moral 
character of persons engaging in other lines of 
business ; that the license granted authorizes the 
proprietor of the saloon to sell intoxicating liquor 
as a beverage ; that the traffic is a legitimate 



26 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



business when licensed ; that the licensed saloon 
is not like any other business; that the licensed 
saloon is prohibited from locating within two 
hundred, three hundred or four hundred feet from 
a church or school in cities, or within one-half 
mile from the same in country places ; that this 
arrangement is designed to prevent the saloon 
from " annoying, offending and inconveniencing " 
the church or school ; that the word nuisance is 
the equivalent for the phrase, "that which 
annoys, offends and inconveniences" ; that other 
kinds of business that presume to sell with or 
without license do not " annoy, offend and incon- 
venience ' ' people, even when located next door 
to a church or school ; that the licensed saloon 
continues to "annoy, offend and inconvenience" 
people, when located outside any of the prescribed 
distances from a church or school ; that the saloon 
is permitted to locate outside certain of the pre- 
scribed distances from a church or school, by 
consent of a majority of the freeholders on both 
sides of the street ; that such action on the part of 
the freeholders does not cause the licensed saloon 
to cease to "annoy, offend and inconvenience" 
people ; that the proprietors of speak-easies, 
usually operate their business with as great pre- 
caution as that with which horse-thieves steal 
horses ; that the proprietors of speak-easies are 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 27 



prohibited from selling because of their unwilling- 
ness to share the profits with the general govern- 
ment, the State and the municipality ; that the 
proprietors of speak-easies should be denounced 
as anarchists and be disfranchised forever ; that 
the licensed saloon differs from the speak-easy, 
in that the proprietor thereof receives the general 
government, the State and municipality into part- 
nership and shares with them the profits, while 
the proprietor of the speak-easy appropriates all 
the profits unto himself; that licensed rum and 
speak-easy whiskey are alike as to their effects ; 
that the proprietor of the licensed saloon is not 
permitted to sell to every person ; that by a series 
of prohibitory restrictions the proprietor of the 
licensed saloon is prohibited from selling to the 
idiot, the insane person, the Indian, the minor, 
the habitual drunkard or manufactured fool cover- 
ing the entire year, and that he is prohibited from 
selling to any person fifty-four days in the year ; 
that this is ' ' sumptuary legislation, ' ' and ' ' unjust 
interference with the liberty of the classes enumer- 
ated and for the time designated ' ' ; that prohibi- 
tionists favor the principle of prohibition or 
" sumptuary legislation " for every person cover- 
ing the entire year, and that the friends of license 
favor the principle of prohibition for certain classes 
covering the entire year, and for every person 



28 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



fifty-four days in the year, and at the same time 
they bitterly denounce the same as "sumptuary 
legislation," and "unjust interference with men's 
liberty ' ' ; that that which is good for the pro- 
tection of certain classes all the year, and for all 
the people fifty-four days in the year, should be 
good for the protection of all the people three 
hundred and sixty-five days in the year. 

SECTION IV. 

Closing Argument in the Pt*oseeution. 

The Saloon a Public fluisanee. 

Prosecuting Attorney. I count myself 
happy in being permitted to address the Supreme 
Bench on this momentous occasion. I am con- 
vinced that no other case so far-reaching, and of 
such paramount importance, is likely to come 
under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 
during the period of many generations. I tremble 
with a sense of awe at the thought of my responsi- 
bility in presenting the closing argument in such 
a case. 

From the evidence at hand I wish to prove that 
the saloon is a public nuisance, both in the legal 
and in the moral sense ; and that to authorize or 
license the same is unconstitutional. 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 29 



This distinguished tribunal will constantly 
bear in mind during the discussion, that a public 
nuisance, as defined by all standard authorities, 
as defined by the King's Bench of England, 
and as defined in past decisions of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, is, "that which, either 
in a legal or in a moral sense, annoys, offends and 
inconveniences any great number of persons in a 
locality." I would also call the attention of the 
court to the fact that when once a public nuisance 
has been discovered, there is no recognized prin- 
ciple at law which does not provide for its 
immediate abatement. In other words, it is con- 
trary to all law for an organized government to 
authorize or license a public nuisance. In final 
action in all matters of jurisprudence we should 
never lose sight of the w 7 ell-recognized principle 
in constitutional law : "that whatever is enacted 
into statutory law should, when executed, admin- 
istered and enforced, tend to promote either the 
educational, the industrial, or the moral and 
social welfare of all the people." Any statutory 
enactment which is found to conflict with this 
directory principle, in any particular, should be 
regarded as law in name only, and at the first 
opportunity, should be set aside as unconstitu- 
tional. The above expression of truth is in 
perfect accord with Biackstone's definition of law, 



30 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



viz: "Law is that which is enacted by the 
supreme power of the State, commending that 
which is right and prohibiting that which is 
wrong ' ' ; for, ' ' That is not law which contro- 
verts the law of God." 

The chief advocate of license and the leading 
witness in the defense, testified that Republicans 
and Democrats, in their national organizations, had 
persistently continued to favor the licensing of the 
retail liquor traffic. This was true especially in 
the past several decades. It appears that the 
great leaders in the parties named assumed the 
embarrassing position, not from principle, nor 
from the consciousness of right, but purely for 
political effect, that they might attain to position 
and enjoy the spoils of office through the corrupt- 
ing influence of this mighty balance of power. 

The many prohibitory restrictions, which the 
perpetrators of license were compelled to insert in 
the text of the various measures enacted for the 
regulating of the retail liquor traffic, plainly 
indicate that they were all the time conscious 
that they were dealing with a public nuisance. 
The leaders in the dominant parties manifested 
for generations their unwillingness to appoint a 
Congressional Commission to enquire into the 
ruinous effects of the traffic in strong drink upon 
society and upon business. They indicated that 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 31 



they would rather seek to promote the financial 
and lucrative interests of the dire traffic than seek 
its public exposure. They were ever ready to 
worship at its Bacchanalian shrine, and to vie 
with each other in most debasing concessions to 
its infamous demands, in order that they might 
continue to share its patronage at the polls. This 
accounts for Levi P. Morton's saloon; for 
Benjamin Harrison's black record ; for James G. 
Blaine's whiskey circular ; for Grover Cleveland's 
subsidy ; for John G. Carlisle's exaltation ; and 
for Wall Street's patronage. All this would 
plainly indicate that the licensed saloon is a 
public nuisance, both in the legal and in the 
moral sense. 

The leading witness in the defence testified, 
"that saloon-keepers, gamblers, operators of 
brothels, anarchists, and many professing Chris- 
tians, continued in the joint use of the ballot to 
support license and license parties. That the 
business of saloon-keepers, gamblers, operators of 
brothels and anarchists, could only be expected to 
grow and flourish in the midst of the profuse use of 
intoxicating drinks. v We are not surprised at the 
friendly attitude of such characters to license and 
to license parties. Every time the retail liquor man 
secures a license, it means a year's lease of life to 
his business, and by no less authority than the 



32 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



affixing thereto of the great seal of State. 
The saloon itself is not only dependent for its 
existence upon the matter of the securing of a 
license, but its allies — the gambling den and the 
brothel — are thus encouraged and entrenched. It 
can only be expected that all such characters will 
confederate to sustain license and license parties 
as necessary to their own existence. The three 
evils have not only conspired so to do, but, being 
the devil's triplets, such conspiracy is natural, 
logical, and to be expected. These three con- 
stitute the schools of anarchy, where persons are 
graduated to break every law of God and man. 
On every election occasion, the operators of these 
institutions of iniquity, feigning patriotism, are 
ready to shout, " O license and license parties, live 
forever ! ' ' They understand that so long as the 
dominant license parties are in possession of the 
reins of government, their hellish trades will grow 
and continue to flourish. The three evils are 
wedded ; they go hand-in-hand ; they have formed 
a triple alliance ; they are of one compound ; they 
are inseparably united, and have resolved to 
"live or die, sink or swim, survive or perish" 
together. They spring from one great cause and 
their effects are, and must continue to be, ' c woe, 
sorrow, contentions, babblings, wounds without 
cause, and redness of eyes. ' ' 



AXD LICEXSE UXCOXSTITUTIOXAL. 33 



"United they stand, divided they fall" : 
And just as the one votes, so vote they all. 

In this connection we argue that the saloon is a 
public nuisance, because it has succeeded in com- 
promizing many professing Christians, in the 
joint use of the ballot with the above-named 
despicable characters, in support of license and 
license parties. The witness testified, "that 
many of the professing Christians, by their influ- 
ence and their ballots, continued to support license 
and license parties." Their reason for so doing 
was not everywhere the same. In the North the 
Republican party was the "grand old party," and 
they continued to support it ; while in the South, 
the Democratic party was the " grand old party," 
and they continued to support it. Many profess- 
ing Christians tried to persuade themselves " that 
the saloon could never be destroyed," notwith- 
standing the fact that God had promised to 
destroy the works of the devil. They delighted 
to soothe their consciences with the plea, ' ' that the 
national, State and municipal revenue derived 
from the business had lessened their taxes, ' ' and 
1 ' that the prohibitory or restrictive features of the 
various license measures had rendered the busi- 
ness respectable." In this particular the great 
adversary was subtle : for many seemingly candid 
persons were deceived. Yet the leading witness 



34 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



in the defense seemed to be of the opinion, that 
such professors of religion were really more closely 
wedded to their "idol parties," than to their 
wives, their children, their Church and their God. 
They appeared to sin against light and knowledge, 
forgetting the Scipture which says: "For if we 
sin wilfully after that we have received the know- 
ledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacri- 
fice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of 
judgment and fiery indignation, which shall 
devour the adversaries. ' ' This peculiar type of 
professing Christians did not seem to comprehend 
that they had joined the ranks of saloon-keepers, 
gamblers, operators of brothels and anarchists in 
perpetuating a common cause. They did not 
seem to realize that they had actually become 
saloon-keepers themselves. They appeared to be 
unable to comprehend, that in the sight of God, 
there are two classes of saloon-keepers, viz. : first- 
class independent ; and second-class dependent, 
The first-class independent saloon-keeper — is the 
man who continually votes to keep the saloon on 
the license plan. The second-class dependent 
saloon-keeper — is the poor bartender who oper- 
ates the saloon, the first-class independent saloon- 
keeper votes to keep. The second-class dependent 
saloon-keeper continually trembles, lest there be 
not a sufficient number of the professing Christians 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 35 



— first-class independent saloon-keepers — who 
will continue to vote with saloon-keepers, gamb- 
lers, operators of brothels and anarchists, to 
authorize the licensed saloon he desires to run. 
If the licensed dram-shop is to be perpetuated, 
I trust we shall be able immediately, all the 
time and everywhere, in oral address, in written 
manuscript and in print, to publish and emphasize 
the importance of our first-class independent 
saloon-keepers ; as well as to expose to clear and 
comprehensive view, the subordinate position of 
our second-class saloon-keepers. When one of 
each type of our saloon-keepers meet at the polls 
to cast an exactly similar ballot, it reminds me of 
the sweet ballad which certain one of our poets 
did sing : 

The Twin Ballots. 

Along in November when chill was the weather, 

Two ballots were cast in a box together, 

Two ballots were cast in together ; 

They nestled up close like brother to brother, 

You couldn't tell one of the votes from the other, 

You couldn't tell one from the other. 

Chorus. 
They were both rum votes, 
And sanctioned the license plan ; 
But one was cast by a j oily old brewer, 
And one by a Sunday-school man. 



36 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



We argue, therefore, that the denunciation of the 
principle of 'prohibition as " sumptuary legislatio7i" 
a?id " unjust interference with men' s liberty ," and 
the lauding of the principle of license as "all-wise, 
wholesome a?id zvell-directed te7nperance measures, ' ' 
on the part of the friends of license, is the strongest 
inferential proof that the saloon is a public nuis- 
ance, both in the legal and in the moral sense. 

The chief advocate of license and the leading 
witness in the defense testified, that the dominant 
license parties continued to denounce the principle 
of prohibition as "sumptuary legislation" and 
"unjust interference with men's liberty," while 
they lauded the opposite principle of license as 
"all-wise, wholesome and well-directed temper- 
ance measures." We will accept the foregoing 
definitions of the two opposite principles as correct, 
and we will cling to them tenaciously for the sake 
of argument. 

In 1882 Kansas adopted constitutional prohibi- 
tion — ' ' sumptuary legislation ' ' and ' ' unjust 
interference with men's liberty " — for all her citi- 
zens covering the entire year. The principle of 
license — "opposition to sumptuary legislation," 
"all- wise, wholesome and well-directed temper- 
ance measures " — was ignominiously rejected, and 
the lamentation was heard from ocean to ocean : 
" Poor deluded Kansas." Had Kansas been will- 



AND LICEXSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 37 



ing to have adopted such legislation for certain 
classes covering the entire year, and for all her 
people a creditable part of the year ; then first and 
second-class saloon-keepers, gamblers, operators of 
brothels, anarchists, and many of the high license 
preachers and professing Christians might have 
been able to have suppressed their indignation, 
and to have forever held their peace. 

Again we argue, that the persistent warfare of 
Prohibitionists , including many of our nobler 
citizens, against the liquor traffic, plainly indicates 
that the saloon is a public nuisance. 

Prohibitionists have been made to feel that two 
hundred and fifty thousand licensed dram-shops, 
operated by five hundred thousand vulgar bar- 
tenders, are sufficient, both in number and char- 
acter, either in a direct or indirect manner, to 
"annoy, offend and inconvenience" every man, 
woman and child in all our broad domain. 

Will this lofty tribunal require me in protracted 
argument to consume valuable time in an attempt 
to prove the saloon to be a public nuisance, when 
the fact seems to be cognizant to every candid 
mind ? Is any argument necessary to prove that 
the saloon really does "annoy, offend and in- 
convenience people ? ' ' 

As the argument progresses, I am confident 
that I shall be able to establish to the entire 



38 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



satisfaction of the court that the saloon is branded 
as a public nuisance, not only by the consensus of 
public opinion, but that the friends and perpetra- 
tors of license were all the time conscious that 
they had been dealing with a public nuisance. 

Each and every prohibitory restriction which 
the friends and promoters of license have been 
compelled to insert in the text of the measures 
which they have enacted for the regulating of the 
retail liquor traffic, is proof positive of the fore- 
going statement. Each and every prohibitory 
restriction found in the text, of the various 
measures enacted for the regulating of the traffic 
is a concession on the part of the friends of license 
that they prefer the principle of prohibition to the 
principle of license, for the protection of the 
person or class of persons in whose interest the 
restriction was inserted. If not, why should the 
friends of license, of their own volition, make the 
principle of prohibition — "sumptuary legislation" 
and "unjust interference with men's liberty" 
— supercede the principle of license — "all- wise, 
wholesome and well-directed temperance meas- 
ures" — in the interests of the classes named ? 

Again we argue that the saloon is a public 
nuisaiice, because it could not obtain the sa?iclion of 
law if it did not receive the general government, 
the State a?id the municipality into partnership. 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 39 



The leading witness in the defense testified 
" that the general government, many of the States 
and municipalities, continued to favor the plan of 
license and the multiplication of saloons, and that 
they actually encouraged the extensive manu- 
facture and sale of strong drink, because they had 
become partners in the business, inasmuch as they 
were made to share in the profits. " 

This brings the general government, the State 
government and the municipal government into a 
peculiar covenant relationship in fulfilment of 
the prophecy of Isaiah, viz : " Because ye have 
said, We have made a covenant with death ; and 
with hell are we at agreement. When the over- 
flowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not 
come unto us, for we have made lies our refuge, 
and under falsehood have we hid ourselves." 

The rum-power has taken such hold upon the 
dominant license parties that it is able now to say 
unto the general government, L,et me live ; I have 
one dollar and ten cents a gallon on distilled spirits 
in times of peace (which, under bitter protest, I 
will permit to be doubled in time of war) for thee. 
It is able to say unto the State, L,et me live ; I have 
a lucrative tax for thee. It is able to say unto 
the municipality, L,et me live ; I have three hun- 
dred, five huudred or one thousand dollars per 
annum for thee. It is able to sa}^ unto the 



40 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



dominant license parties, Let me live ; I have 
revenue, patronage, exaltation and the spoils of 
office to barter for the money, and the bodies and 
souls of men. 

The dominant license parties say, We are all 
agreed. Let the general government have the 
internal revenue ; let the State have a lucrative 
tax ; let the municipality have her stipulated fee 
from each saloon ; let the great leaders in the 
dominant license parties have patronage, exalta- 
tion and the spoils of office ; and we are gleefully 
ready to ratify the " covenant with death and the 
agreement with hell," as the parties of the first 
part ; that the two hundred and fifty thousand 
licensed dram-shops shall be authorized to glean 
from the drinking classes, one billion two hun- 
dred million dollars in cash each year, thereby 
guaranteeing to death the bodies of one hundred 
thousand habitual drunkards each year, inviting 
hell as her part of the contract to claim their 
souls ; thus entirely satisfying the parties of the 
second part. Thus the parties of the first and 
second parts have ratified the covenant and it 
stands to-day, notwithstanding that a very large 
percentage of the citizens of the State and nation 
have been irreparably damaged in their health, 
their morals and in their industrial life. 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 41 



The covenant stands, while it is the prevalent 
opinion that the licensed dram-shops are the rifest 
schools of anarchy. The covenant stands in 
opposition to the common opinion that the traffic 
in strong drink creates disease, and results in 
idleness, misery, pauperism and crime. "There- 
fore thus saith the Lord God : Behold I lay in 
Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a 
precious corner-stone, a sure foundation ; he that 
believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also 
will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the 
plummet ; and the hail shall sweep away the 
refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the 
hiding place. And your covenant with death 
shall be disannulled, and your agreement with 
hell shall not stand ; when the overflowing 
scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be 
trodden down by it." "Woe unto him that 
buildeth a town with blood, and establisheth a 
city by iniquity ! ' ' ' ' Woe unto him that giveth 
his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, 
and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest 
look on their nakedness." 

Honorable Sirs : Surely that constitutes a 
public nuisance, which contaminates every com- 
munity in which it exists with the viris of death, 
and breeds the most debasing evils which fallen 
spirits can invent. 



42 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



Again we argue that the saloon is a public nuis- 
ance^ because it corrupts a?id destroys the moral 
character of the men who operate it. 

The leading witness in the defense testified that 
the friends of license had placed a principle in the 
text of the various license measures requiring 
* ' that persons of good moral character only be 
permitted to operate the licensed saloon ; that the 
character of the applicant shall be established to 
the satisfaction of the license court by the testi- 
mony of two good freeholders, each worth at least 
two thousand dollars." It is estimated that there 
are two hundred and fifty thousand licensed dram- 
shops in our country, operated by more than five 
hundred thousand bartenders. If persons of good 
moral character only be permitted to operate the 
saloons, it would seem in a threatening manner to 
embarrass our churches. Does it not seem that 
the ever-increasing number of saloons, in order to 
find a sufficient number of bartenders of good 
moral character to operate the same, might be 
called upon in the near future to draft the elders 
and deacons of the churches into the service of the 
retail liquor business, thereby leaving many of our 
churches without an organization ? The only 
security to the churches, in this particular, seems 
to lie in the fact that this particular requirement 
in the text of the various license measures, like 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 43 



all other restrictions, was never intended to be 
strictly observed. This, at least, seems to have 
been the opinion of the leading witness in the 
defense, as was clearly brought out in the cross- 
examination. It is plain to every careful observer, 
that those who operate the saloons as a class, fear 
not God, neither do they regard man. As a class, 
they are blasphemous Sabbath-breakers, gamblers, 
whore-mongers, adulterers, covetous extortioners, 
and like unto the great adversary himself, lovers 
and makers of lies. Notwithstanding that such 
is the general character of those who operate the 
saloons, the license court seems to have but little 
difficulty in finding two good freeholders, each 
worth at least two thousand dollars, who are will- 
ing to testify that each applicant is possessor of a 
good moral character ; and thus the churches es- 
cape disorganization. 

Again we argue that the saloon is a public nuis- 
ance, because it corrupts the government, which, by 
legalizing the traffic, becomes responsible for the 
direful evils that flow therefrom. 

The leading witness in the defense testified, 
" that the saloon is licensed to sell intoxicating 
liquor as a beverage ; that it is a legitimate busi- 
ness when licensed, illegitimate when not licensed ; 
that unlicensed saloons are called ■ speak-easies' , 
'joints', 'holes-in-the-wall,' and such likeexpres- 



44 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



sions ; and that persons who in a still more secret 
way smuggle the beverage are often called ' boot- 
leggers' ; that such characters should be denounced 
as anarchists, and be disfranchised forever. " 

We argue that a business which results in evil, 
in evil only, and that continually, is a public nuis- 
ance, whether it be licensed or unlicensed. We 
argue that that which authorizes evil, is law in 
name only. L,aw in fact must commend right by 
prohibiting wrong. We maintain that the princi- 
ple of prohibition commends right, and is law in 
fact, even though it be denounced by the friends 
of license as ' ' sumptuary legislation ' ' and ' ' un- 
just interference with men's liberty." A business 
which results in evil effects only can never be jus- 
tified, even though it be authorized by the affixing 
of the great seal of State. A law which com- 
mends right, when executed, administered and 
enforced, must of necessity prohibit wrong. As 
we have already stated, that only is law which 
tends to promote either the educational, the indus- 
trial, cr the moral and social welfare of the people. 
We are of the opinion that the Christian man 
should never be required to assume an official po- 
sition, where his oath of office will require him to 
administer a statutory measure in direct conflict 
with the law of Christ. A statute which conflicts 
with the law of Christ should be denounced by 
all Christian citizens, as law in name only. 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 45 



The ruinous effects of the liquor sold, both in 
the licensed and in the unlicensed saloons, are 
everywhere plainly visible. If the bartender who 
operates a speak-easy this year should be de- 
nounced as an anarchist, and be disfranchised 
forever, how does he, upon obtaining a license, 
become a person of good moral character and 
worthy of the right of franchise, when he runs the 
same place next year as a licensed saloon ? Is he 
not the same person, operating the same business 
in the same place, and does he not sell the same 
brands of intoxicating drinks as before? Last 
year the government officials denounced him as a 
sneaking anarchist, because he appropriated all 
the speak-easy profits unto himself. This }'ear 
the same officials laud him as a citizen of good 
moral character, because he is willing now to 
share the profits of the licensed saloon with the 
State and the municipality. Last year, as the 
leading witness in the defense did testify, "he 
conducted his speak-easy business with as great 
precaution as that with which horse-thieves steal 
horses ' ' ; this year, with the cynic condonence of 
the license court, he conducts the same place be- 
hind glazed windows and screened doors. But 
now the general government, the State and the 
municipal governments are made to share in the 
profits and are satisfied. 



46 THE SALOON A NUISANCE. 



Again we argue that the friends and promoters 
of license plainly indicate that the saloon is a public 
nuisance, because of the peculiar restrictions which 
they have placed in the text of the various license 
measures relating to the distances at which the 
saloon must be located from a church or school. 

The chief advocate of license and the leading 
witness in the defense testified " that the friends 
and promoters of license had enacted a series of 
prohibitory or sumptuary restrictions, forbidding 
the proprietor of the licensed saloon from locating 
his place of business nearer than two hundred, 
three hundred or four hundred feet from a church 
or school in cities, or nearer than one-half mile 
from the same in country places ; the distance to 
be regulated in each case according to the moral 
sense of the law-makers in each State. ' ' 

The following diagram will help to demonstrate 
the moral sense of the Congress of the United 
States in passing an act and of the President in 
signing it, for the protection of the churches and 
schools in Washington, D. C. 




SECnOMLMAPofWasfi/qg/wiM. 
5/!omj?accorcf/f7jgfoMofCo/7#feJs/fie 
prescr/ded distances a/Z/rsfC/ass and 
Ordinary Ja/om from Cf?urc/ies&Sc/;ook 
C/iurc/ies are represented Mas © 
Schools arerepresenred ifrus <§> 
J s - T (Iass Saloons arerepresenfedlfos g 
Ord/naryMoons are represented ffas ■ 



48 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



Each circle represents a Prohibition district — 
according to an Act of Congress, as signed by the 
President — for the protection of the geometrical 
center, which in each case represents either a 
church or a school. According to the original 
intention of this Act of Congress, all licensed 
saloons were required to locate outside of, up to 
or on the line, but never inside the line of the 
circumference of any of the prescribed circular 
areas. This restriction was regarded as the law 
for Washington, D. C, until Levi P. Morton, the 
then acting Vice-President of the United States, 
either unwittingly, or in open defiance of the law, 
built a first-class hotel (the Shoreham), containing 
a first-class saloon, with a first-class bar, eighty 
feet long, from behind which forty-four brands of 
intoxicating drinks were sold. 

When the news reached Congress that the Vice- 
President of the United States had violated the 
law, instead of arresting and convicting the 
criminal, Congress hastily assembled and passed 
an amendment to the law, permitting the locating 
of a first-class hotel, with a first-class saloon, with 
a first-class bar, within the circumference of the 
circular area ; while a saloon without a first-class 
hotel built over it must not be located inside the 
circumference of any of the prohibition circular 
areas. The Mdnrfc-colored marks outside of the 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 49 



circumferences of the circular areas represent 
the licensed saloons in Washington, D. C, which 
have not a first-class hotel built over them, while 
the marks inside the circumferences aside from 
the centers represent the licensed saloons which 
have a first-class hotel built over them. 

This diagram indicates clearly the wisdom of 
Congress, as approved by the signature of the 
President of the United States, in an attempt to 
protect the church or school from being " annoyed, 
offended and inconvenienced" by the licensed 
saloon. The different States have enacted simi- 
lar laws for the protection of churches and 
schools, only the diameters of the circular pro- 
hibitory areas seem to vary in measurement 
according to the moral sense of the different 
Legislatures. 

I should be delighted to be possessor of a map 
of the United States which would clearly indicate 
by its hundreds of thousands of prohibitory 
circular areas of various dimensions, expressing 
the (< all- wise, wholesome and well-directed 
temperance measures" of Congress and of our 
several State Legislatures, enacted for the protec- 
tion of our churches and schools. 

Again we argue that the friends of license clearly 
indicate that the saloon is a public nuisa7ice by 
placing prohibitory or "sumptuary restrictions''' 



50 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



hi the text of the various license measures prohibit- 
ing the retail liquor men from selliiig to every 
person outside, or to any person inside the circum- 
ferences of the favored circular areas, having for 
their geometrical centers churches and schools. 

The chief advocate of license and the leading 
witness in the defense testified, ' ' that the propri- 
etor of the licensed saloon, who had previously 
paid three hundred, five hundred or one thousand 
dollars, for a year's lease of life to his business, 
when located with due respect to the geometrical 
centers of the favored circular areas, is prohibited 
by sumptuary restrictions from selling to every per- 
son"; "that the proprietor of almost any other 
kind of business might locate next door to a church 
or school, and be permitted to sell to any person 
without license"; and " that the reason for such 
discrimination is due to the fact that the saloon 
is not like any other business." 

I cannot but regard this particular restriction 
of the license measures as an aggravated form of 
"class legislation." It places a restriction upon 
the retail liquor traffic, which no body of sane men 
would for a moment think of placing upon a legi- 
timate business. It seems to strain almost to the 
breaking point every righteous and equitable 
principle at law. It furnishes a splendid exibition 
of the fallacious opposition of the friends of license 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 51 



to the principle of prohibition. While the restric- 
tion prohibits the retail liquor men from selling to 
certain classes outside the circumferences of the 
favored circular areas, having for their geometrical 
centers churches and schools, it prohibits the 
ordinary bartender from selling to any person 
within the circumferences of the same circular 
areas. While this is the will of congress and of 
the several State legislatures, as expressed in the 
various license measures, for the direction of the 
ordinary bartender, the same authorities authorize 
the extraordinary bartender to sell to certain 
classes either outside or inside the circumferences 
of the favored circular areas. 

Again we argue, that the friends and perpe- 
trators of license plainly indicate that the saloon is 
a public nuisance, in the prohibitory or "sump- 
tuary restriction " which they have placed in the 
text of the various license measures, forbidding the 
retail liquor men to sell to the idiot. 

The leading witness in the defense testified, 
( 'that the proprietor of the licensed saloon, who 
had previously paid three hundred, five hundred, 
or one thousand dollars for a year's lease of life to 
his business, when located two hundred, three 
hundred, or four hundred feet from a church or 
school, the logical geometrical center of a favored 
circular area, by consent of a majority of the free- 



52 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



holders on both sides of the street, is prohibited 
from selling to the idiot." This prohibitory or 
" sumptuary restriction " is designed to cover the 
entire year, and was placed in the text of the vari- 
ous license measures for the protection of this class 
of unfortunates. The restriction is not only 
intended to cover the entire year, but the entire 
life of each person belonging to this class. It 
seems passing strange, that the principle of prohi- 
bition — "sumptuary legislation" and "unjust 
interference with men's liberty" — according to the 
mind of the friends of license as expressed in the 
text of the various license measures, is really bet- 
ter suited to the protection of the idiot than the 
principle of license. In this particular, the friends 
of license place the idiot in the same category with 
minors. In the sight of the law the idiot is to be 
regarded as a minor as long as he lives. While 
the friends of the saloon persistently claim that 
the principle of license is "all-wise, wholesome 
and well-directed " for certain persons : the prin- 
ciple of prohibition alone is " all-wise, wholesome 
and well-directed" for the protection and security 
of the idiot. The leading witness in the defense 
justified this peculiar restriction on the ground 
"that the brain of the idiot is so far below the 
normal size and weight, that it requires much less 
rum to turn him into the ditch than it does the 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 53 



compos me?itis person." He intimates that that 
which constitutes "unjust interference with the 
liberty " of persons in the compas mentks state, is 
just interference with the liberty of persons in the 
?ion compas mentis state. He seemed to be con- 
scious that if the retail liquor men were permitted 
to sell intoxicating liquor to an idiot, he would be 
certain to " annoy, offend and inconvenience " all 
his friends. The farther we proceed in the argu- 
ment, the more clearly we will discover the truth 
of the oft-repeated statement of the chief advocate 
of license : that the retail liquor traffic is not like 
any other business. We would justly regard our 
law-makers as being less w 7 ise than the idiot, if 
they were to pass a similar law, prohibiting men 
in other lines of business from selling to the idiot. 
While it is proper — now, under this feature of the 
license measures, to declare that the idiot, or born 
fool, is already quite a sufficient burden to society, 
without his being filled with that which is com- 
monly designated as "forty-rod whiskey," it would 
then be proper to declare that the idiot, or born fool, 
is already quite a sufficient burden to society, with- 
out his being filled with Orleans sugar, spare-ribs 
or mutton-chops. I deem it important that the 
attention of the court be directed now for a little 
to the study of 



54 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



R Iieading Cause for Idioey. 

The leading scientific men in the medical profes- 
sion are agreed, " that if the ancestors on the two 
sides of a house, dating back for two generations, 
were all habitual drunkards, the children of the 
third generation would be liable to suffer the 
awful consequences from the curse of heredity. 
If the family of the third generation should con- 
sist of ten children, it might be expected that at 
least seven out of the ten would have imposed 
upon them the burden of some incurable disa- 
bility." Certain of the number, in all probability, 
would be born idiots ; certain others would be 
lible to early insanity ; still others of the number 
would be liable to develop ungovernable tendencies 
to crime ; while the whole family might reasonably 
expect to suffer all through life from an insatiable 
appetite for narcotics and stimulants. Kit were 
possible in the kind Providence of a beneficent 
heaven, that three out of the ten should be so 
blessed of God as to escape the manifold hereditary 
curses, it would devolve upon the three, in addition 
to their ow 7 n burdens, to carry the burdens of the 
other seven for life, or the burden of the seven would 
otherwise fall upon the bosom of the charities of 
the State. Who, among all the advocates of license, 
will be able to justify the conduct of the State in 
authorizing an evil so desolating and far-reaching 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 55 



in its nefarious effects. Men may strive to apolo- 
gize for the existence of the iniquitous business in 
the presence of the authorities of earth ; but what 
excuse will they render to the Judge of all the 
earth in that great day ? O Honorable Judges ! 
if it was absolutely impossible to find another 
accusation against the licensed traffic in strong 
drink, this one line of argument ought to be suf- 
ficient in the sight of God, angels and men to 
brand the saloon as «the most infernal type of a 
nuisance that men or devils can possibly invent. 

Again we argue, that the friends of license 
plainly indicate that the saloon is a nuisa?ice, inas- 
much as they prohibit the bartender from selling to 
the insane person. 

The chief advocate of license and the leading 
witness in the defense testified ' ' that the friends 
of license had placed a restriction in the text of 
the various license measures, prohibiting the 
saloon-keeper, who had previously paid three 
hundred, five hundred or one thousand dollars 
for a year's lease of life to his business, from 
selling to the insane person." 

By such action the promoters of license plainly 
indicate that the principle of prohibition — "sump- 
tuary legislation " and "unjust interference w 7 ith 
men's liberty" — is better suited to the protection 
of the insane person than the principle of license — 



56 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



" all-wise, wholesome and well-directed temper- 
ance measures." This restriction is also intended 
to cover the entire year, and like the restriction 
relating to the idiot, places the insane person and 
the idiot in the same category with minors. The 
insane person also is in need of a custodian and 
should be protected as a minor as long as he lives. 
The reason for this restriction is evident. If the 
retail liquor men were permitted to sell to an 
insane person, and if he sliould become intoxi- 
cated, it would result not only in exciting his 
passions, but w r ould be like pouring oil upon the 
flames of his insanity. If it requires one person 
all the time to hold an insane person in safe 
custody when he is sober, it would no doubt re- 
quire three persons to guard him with equal 
security if he was intoxicated. Hence, if one out 
of every four persons was constantly both insane 
and intoxicated, it would require the rest of man- 
kind all the time to guard them as prisoners, and 
the race would soon perish from off the earth, 
for there would be no persons left to earn bread. 

Again we argue that the friends of license 
plainly i?idicate that they had been dealing with a 
nuisance, by placing a prohibitory or "sumptuary 
restriction ' ' in the text of the various license 
measures, forbidding the retail liquor ma?i to sell 
to the Indian. 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 57 



The leading witness in the defense testified 
"that the person who had previously paid the 
stipulated price for a year's lease of life to his 
business," etc, "is prohibited from selling to the 
Indian." This also is a concession on the part of 
the friends of license, that the principle of pro- 
hibition — "sumptuary legislation" and "unjust 
interference with men's liberty" — is better suited 
to the protection of the Indian than the principle 
of license — "all-wise, wholesome and well-directed 
temperance measures." This restriction also 
covers the entire year. 

Although common opinion would seem to in- 
dicate that the Indian has but few privileges 
which the white man is bound to respect, yet 
even the friends of license seem to respect the 
principle of prohibition, which they denounce as 
"sumptuary legislation" and "unjust inter- 
ference with men's liberty," as necessary for the 
protection of the Indian from the awful ravages of 
strong drink. He is a savage, you know, and 
our government has sufficient difficulty in induc- 
ing him to continually smoke the pipe of peace 
when he is sober, without permitting retail liquor 
men to sell to him. We are convinced of the fact 
that if the retail liquor men were permitted to fill 
an Indian with fire-water, he would be liable to 
fire the whole community — church, school and alL 



53 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



Again we argue that the friends of license 
plainly indicate that the saloon is a nuisa?ice, in 
that they have placed a prohibitory restriction tn 
the text of the various license measures, forbiddijig 
the retail liquor men to sell to minors. 

The leading witness in the defense testified 
<( that the person who had previously paid three 
hundred, five hundred or one thousand dollars, 
for a year's lease of life to his business, is pro- 
hibited by the friends of license from selling to 
minors." 

This prohibitory or "sumptuary restriction" 
was placed in the text of the various license 
measures by the friends of license, for the protec- 
tion of minors, and, like the preceding restrictions, 
was intended to cover the entire year. This is a 
concession on the part of the friends and pro- 
moters of license, that the principle of prohibi- 
tion — ' ' sumptuary legislation " and " unj ust 
interference with men's liberty " — is better suited 
to the protection of minors than the principle of 
license — " all wise, wholesome and well-directed 
temperance measures." 

This brings to mind again the peculiar opinion 
of the perpetrators of license ; that " that which 
constitutes ' unjust interference with the liberty' 
of compus mentis persons in the major state, is 
"just interference with the liberty of compus 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, 59 

ment&s persons in the minor state.'" In other 
words, while compos mentis persons are in the 
minor state they are to be protected by the prin- 
ciple of prohibition — "sumptuary legislation" 
and "unjust interference with men's liberty." 
But just as soon as they reach the major state 
they are to be protected by the principle of license 
— " all- wise, wholesome and well-directed temper- 
ance measures," until they become habitual 
drunkards, when they are placed again under the 
principle of prohibition for their recovery and 
restoration. 

Thus the friends of license manifest their wil- 
lingness to protect the boy so long as he is papa's 
boy, and the girl so long as she is mamma's girl. 
In other words, they undertake to protect the boy, 
in the application of the principle of prohibition, 
until he is twenty years, eleven months, twenty- 
nine days, twenty-three hours, fifty-nine minutes 
and fifty-nine seconds old ; and the girl, after a 
similar process of calculation, until after a long 
and wearisome period of waiting, they are passed 
by a single clock-tick from the minor into the 
major state. 

Again we argue that the frieiids of license 
plainly indicate that the saloon is a public nuisance, 
in that they have placed a prohibitory restriction in 
the text of the various license measures, forbidding 



60 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



the retail liquor men to sell to their regular cus- 
tomers. 

The leading witness in the defense testified 
" that the saloon-keeper who had previously paid 
three hundred, five hundred or one thousand 
dollars for a year's lease of life to his business, is 
prohibited from selling to the habitual drunkard." 

In stating the above proposition to be argued, 
I mentioned "that the retail liquor men were 
prohibited from selling to their regular customers. ' ' 
I have used the exact synonym for that which 
the friends and promoters of license have placed 
in the text of the law. Regular customer is the 
exact synonym for habitual drunkard ; it is 
habitual drunkard in the text of the law. 

(At this juncture the attorney for the defense 
arose to his feet in a white heat of passion and 
demanded an explanation.) He said: "Can I 
trust my ears ? Has the attorney in the prosecu- 
tion lost his reason ? We will not suffer to have 
heaped upon us the calumny of consummate 
nonsense. 

" The attorney in the prosecution has asserted 
( that the friends of license have placed a restric- 
tion in the text of the various license measures 
prohibiting the retail liquor men from selling to 
their regular customers.' I wish to resent the 
statement, as an unpardonable insult to any sane 
body of law-makers. 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 61 



M Does the prosecuting attorney intimate that 
the friends of license have become a pack of idiots, 
or a ranting set of fools? I know of no such 
restriction in the text of arly license measure. I 
beg your superior majesty to stay the argument 
in the prosecution until there be either an appro- 
priate apology or a satisfactory explanation." 

Prosecuting attorney, continuing : I have no 
apology to offer ; but, I trust, the attorney in the 
defense shall have a satisfactory explanation in 
due time. I retract not an iota from my former 
setting forth of the truth. I have prepared my 
argument in exact accordance with the text of the 
various license measures as enacted by the friends 
and promoters of license. 

The attorney in the defense seems to doubt the 
accuracy of his hearing. It is my candid opinion 
that when the truth is once fully discovered it 
will cause the ears of all the advocates of license 
to tingle. 

It has already been decided by this great 
tribunal " that this is a Christian nation," and I 
trust it is, sirs ; but if the retail liquor traffic, like 
the grocery business, or like the boot and shoe 
business, be a legitimate business, it is not the 
act of a Christian nation to first tax the proprietor 
of the saloon three hundred, five hundred or one 
thousand dollars for a year's lease of life to his 



62 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



business, then by a series of " all- wise, wholesome 
and w r ell- directed temperance measures" prohibit 
him from selling to the idiot, to the insane person, 
to the Indian, to minors, and last of all — to his 
regular customers. 

If the above restrictions be properly enforced, 
what is the poor fellow to do ? Does he not pay 
dearly for the privilege of entering into a peculiar 
business, in a peculiar location, under peculiar 
circumstances; and for the other privilege of sit- 
ting down to do nothing ? Am I not justifiable in 
arriving at the conclusion that the government 
that will continue to impose such embarrassing 
conditions upon a legitimate business is worse 
than barbarous, in this particular at least. 

Now as to the demanded explanation. I trust 
the explanation I am now about to offer may 
have soothing effect upon the learned, but not 
well-regulated attorney. The attorney in the 
defense is a scholar, and will no doubt under- 
stand the appropriate use of an exact synonym. 
A synonym is a word, phrase, clause or sentence 
that means just the same as another word, phrase, 
clause or sentence when used instead thereof. 
When I stated that the friends and promoters of 
license had placed a prohibitory restriction in the 
text of the various license measures, forbidding 
the retail liquor men from selling to their regular 



AND LICEXSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 63 



customers, I used the exact synonym for habitual 
drunkards. It is habitual drunkard in the text of 
the various license measures. The retail liquor 
men are prohibited from selling to the habitual 
drunkard. The friends of license have adopted 
the principle of prohibition — "sumptuary legisla- 
tion'' and "unjust interference with men's 
liberty " — for the protection of the habitual drunk- 
ard. Now, the habitual drunkard is the man 
who has the habit of drinking often until he is 
intoxicated. If he drinks only once in a while, 
or frequently, every person will call him an 
occasional or frequent drinker. If he has the 
habit of drinking very often, say seven times a 
day — and nine or more times on Sabbath — then 
every person will call him an habitual drunkard. 
Xow, he who has the habit of drinking so very 
often must of necessity buy often, and he who 
buys often is a regular customer anywhere. 
Hence, regular customer is the exact synonym for 
the term habitual drunkard. The friends and 
promoters of license have adopted the principle of 
prohibition — " sumptuary legislation " and "un- 
just interference with men's liberty " — for the pro- 
tection, recovery and restoration of the habihtal 
drunkard, the regular customer, the manufactu?'ed 
fool. 

O, Honorable Sirs ! I would rather be the idiot, 



64 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



or born-fool, and be protected by the principle of 
prohibition — ' ' sumptuary legislation ' ' and ' ' un- 
just interference with men's liberty " — all my life, 
than the habitual drunkard, the regular customer, 
the manufactured fool, and be protected afterward. 
Wouldn't you? The habitual drunkard, regular 
customer, manufactured fool, is 

A ]\flan fill Drunk. 

He is a graduate from a licensed school of an- 
archy. His hair is drunk ; it is all dishevelled. 
His eyes are drunk ; they are all blood-shot. His 
nose is drunk ; it is all aflame. His mouth is 
drunk ; it is filled with cursing. His tongue is 
drunk ; it is grown so thick that it should rent a 
larger room. His face is drunk ; it is his grad- 
uating parchment, the bartender's traveling 
bulletin. His brain is drunk ; he has lost his 
equilibrium. His hands are drunk ; he strikes 
his wife and child as readily as he does the blank 
air. His feet are drunk ; when he would go for- 
ward he goes backward ; when he would turn to 
the right he turns to the left, and when he would 
turn to the left he turns to the right. Feet down 
often means head down ; standing erect often 
mean his horizontal measurement in the gutter. 
He does everything in an inverted order. He 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 65 



greets his father as his son, and his son as his 
father ; his brother as his uncle, and his uncle as 
his brother ; his daughter as his niece, and his 
niece as his daughter ; his wife as his grand- 
mother, and his grandmother as his wife. When 
he laughs he cries, and when he cries he laughs. 
He may be found at the street-corner embracing 
the lamp-post, and pathetically pleading to be 
reconciled to his long-divorced wife. His soul is 
drunk ; his heart is become a cage for every foul 
bird and for every unclean beast. He is finan- 
cially, physically, intellectually and morally bank- 
rupt. He has ceased to be patriotic, and is 
utterly disqualified, not only for every form of 
industrial life, but for every species of military 
duty. He is the semi-putrid subject for the vir- 
ulent attack of every pestilential disease. 

Thus more than two million five hundred 
thousand persons are already disqualified by the 
authority of the State, not only for the successful 
pursuit of industrial life, but bearing arms in 
defense of the country. 

O, Honorable Sirs ! I repeat it : I would rather 
be the idiot or bornfool, and be protected by the 
principle of prohibition — ' ' sumptuary legisla- 
tion" and ''unjust interference with men's 
liberty " — all my life, than become the habitual 
drunkard, regular customer, manufactured fool, 
and be protected afterward. Wouldn't you? 



66 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



Finally under this proposition : The friends of 
license plainly indicate that the saloon is a nuisance, 
in that they have placed a prohibitory rest? r iction i?i 
the text of the various license measures, forbidding 
the retail liquor men to sell to any perso?i. 

The chief advocate of license and the leading 
witness in the defense testified "that the saloon- 
keeper, whose character had been established to 
the satisfaction of the license court, by the testi- 
mony of two good freeholders, each worth at 
least two thousand dollars ; who had been en- 
couraged to enter into the retail liquor business 
by the consent of a majority of the freeholders on 
both sides of the street ; after having paid the 
sum of three hundred, five hundred or one thou- 
sand dollars for a year's lease of life to his busi- 
ness, when located two hundred, three hundred 
or four hundred feet from a church or school, the 
logical geometrical center of a favored circular 
area ; and after having been informed by the 
friends and promoters of license, in a series of 
prohibitory or 'sumptuary restrictions,' that he 
was not to sell to idiots, to insane persons, to 
Indians, to minors, nor to habitual drunkards — 
his regular customers — he is then informed, last 
of all, that he must not sell to any person." 

I perceive that the attorney in the defense is on 
his feet again. He appears, in his great excite- 
ment, to display in his countenance the seven 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 67 



colors of the rainbow, only with a little more 
murkiness and a little less brilliancy. This time 
he appears to be able only to gesticulate and to 
fill the court-room, as it were, with facial grimaces. 
Becoming incompetent at oral display, he seems 
to have become a child again and to have returned 
to the vigorous use of natural language, as the 
next best means to make himself to be compre- 
hended by the court. If I may not be permitted 
to proceed with my argument until we shall have 
succeeded in soothing him, perhaps the court will 
pardon me if I should sing to him that sweetest 
of all lullabies : 

" Backward, turn backward, O time in your flight ! 
Make me a child again just for to-night," etc. 
" Rock me to sleep, mother, rock me to sleep." 

And now since the good order of the court is 
once more restored, I wish emphatically to declare 
that the friends and promoters of license have put 
themselves on record in the text of the various 
license measures in the exact manner as stated ; 
which statement caused the attorney in the 
defense to raise such a commotion. 

While the perpetrators of license continued in 
intense ire to denounce the principle of prohibi- 
tion as " sumptuary legislation " and "unjust 
interference with men's liberty," yet at the same 
time they embodied the same principle in the text 
of the various license measures, for the protection 



68 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



of certain classes of persons, as above enumerated, 
covering the entire year ; and for all the rest of 
mankind covering a creditable part of the year. 
They made it unlawful, by a series of prohibitory 
restrictions, for the retail liquor men at any time, 
or anywhere, to sell to idiots, to insane persons, 
to Indians, to minors, to habitual drunkards, and 
fifty-four days in the year — the fifty-four best days 
in the year, on fifty-two Sabbaths and on two 
election days — they made it unlawful for the 
retail liquor men to sell to any person. They 
must have been guided by the conviction that the 
principle of prohibition — "sumptuary legisla- 
tion" and "unjust interference with men's 
liberty" — is absolutely necessary for the protec- 
tion of the classes in need of guardian care, three 
hundred and sixty-five days in the year ; and for 
all the rest of mankind fifty-four days in the year, 
in order that we might attain to quiet Sabbaths 
and quiet elections. 

If the principle of prohibition is to be regarded 
as "all-wise, wholesome and well-directed" for 
the protection of certain classes of persons three 
hundred and sixty-five days in the year, and for 
all the people fifty-four days in the year, how 
does the principle cease to be "all-wise, whole- 
some and well-directed " if chosen for the protec- 
tion of all the people fifty-four days plus three 
hundred and eleven days more each year? 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 69 



If the application of the principle of prohibition 
insures quiet Sabbaths and quiet elections, accord- 
ing to the mind of the friends of license, as is ex- 
pressed in the text of the various license measures; 
will it not insure a quiet year, if adopted for the 
remaining three hundred and eleven days ? Does 
it not seem strange, that the business which is 
prohibited from selling to certain classes of per- 
sons three hundred and sixty-five days in the 
year, and to all the people fifty-four days in the 
year, should become the most lucrative business 
on earth ? It is estimated that the retail liquor 
traffic gleaned twelve hundred million dollars last 
year from the drinking classes, and that the 
drinking classes lost more than an equal sum in 
wage-earning time. The aggregated loss to the 
drinking classes would thus amount to two billion 
four hundred million dollars in a single year. 
Estimating the aggregated wealth of our country 
at seventy-two billion dollars, at the above rate of 
loss, it would require but thirty years to bankrupt 
the entire resources of the nation, if we did not 
flee from the awful calamity by the natural and 
industrial increase of wealth. We are accustomed 
to complain of hard times, of over-production, of 
bank failures, of lack of confidence, of strikes and 
lock-outs, and of destitution and want. While 
the cry of over-production has been made to ring 



THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



in our ears, we would have but little trouble to- 
day in finding millions of persons who are ready 
to swear by the god Bacchus, that the great trouble 
is under-consumption. Call no more extra ses- 
sions of Congress for the repeal of a Sherman 
Act ; hold no more long sessions of Congress for 
the purpose of doctoring a sickly tarifff, or the 
nurturing of infant industries until they become 
giant trusts. Let the retail liquor men be gener- 
ous for once. Let them turn the losses accruing 
to the drinking classes last year to me, and I will 
run the Government for one year, relieve every 
business which financial depression touches, and 
have enough money left to feed, clothe and shelter 
all the poor in the land through seven years of fam- 
ine. Surely that which brings such destitution, 
want and misery to so many millions of our fellow- 
citizens constitutes a public nuisance both in a legal 
and moral sense. So convinced am I of this fact, 
that I verily believe, that if God should permit the 
fallen spirits to enjoy a year's vacation at the 
North pole, on condition that they would spend 
the whole time in an endeavor to invent a more 
infernal type of a nuisance, to be a substitute 
for the licensed saloon ; that if they were honest 
devils and true to their profession, at the end of 
the time they would confess their incompetency, 
and adjourn sine die, and return to their native 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 



place of torment mortified at their failure, and 
utterly disgusted with themselves, that they had 
been outdone in this particular by the friends and 
promoters of license. 

SECTION V. 
Iiieense Unconstitutional. 

In entering upon the discussion of this proposi- 
tion, I desire to call the attention of the court to 
the fact, that there are more than three million 
voters in our great republic who are professing 
Christians ; a mighty balance of power, able to 
dictate the Christian policy of this great nation, 
if they were only willing to indicate to the domi- 
nant political parties that they had determined to 
stand together, in defense of every interest of 
Christ's kingdom. It is one thing to pass 
resolutions in the conferences and assemblies 
of the churches, in the interests of Christian 
civilization ; and quite another thing to vote 
with the vulgar and the profane, to legalize 
the paramount interests of the kingdom of 
Satan. I call Heaven and earth to witness that 
the Judge of all the earth will hold the Church of 
Christ responsible for the continuance of the traffic 
in strong drink, since she refuses to exercise the 
power with which her glorious and exalted Head 



72 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



has invested her, to stamp out the last vestige of 
the iniquitous business in a single year. I can do 
no better than to repeat, at this juncture, in the 
audience of the court, the concensus of the opin- 
ion of the entire Church of Christ in reference to 
the evil traffic in strong drink, as is voiced in the 
resolutions of the conferences and general assem- 
blies of the Churches. 

JVIethodist Hpiseopal Chut*eh on 
Prohibition. 

The General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church at its quadrennial session in Omaha, 
Nebraska, in May, 1892, among a series of ring- 
ing resolutions, adopted the following as number 
four of the set : 

(4) Attitude toward the Traffic. — We 
reiterate the language of the Episcopal Address of 
1888 : "The liquor traffic is so pernicious i7i all its 
beari?igs, so inimical to the interests of honest trade, 
so repugnant to the moral sense, so injurious to the 
peace a?id order of society, so hurtful to the home, to 
the Church, and to the body politic, and so utterly 
antagonistic to all that is precious in life, that the 
only proper attitude toward it, for Christians, is 
that of relentless hostility. It can never be legal- 
ized without sin." We concur in the Episcopal 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 



Address 0/1892, where it is declared: "In our 
judgment the saloon is an unmixed evil, full of 
diabolism, a disgrace to our civilization, the chief 
cowuptor of political actio?t a?id a co?itinual menace 
to the order of society and the peace and purity of 
our homes. ' ' Believing as we do that the traffic in 
intoxicating beverages sustains the relation of an 
efficie?it cause to the vice of intemperance, we hold 
that no member of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
can co?isistently contribute by voice, vote or influ- 
ence to the perpehcation and protection of that 
traffic. We declare before all the ivorld that the 
Church of God ought to be known ahvays and every- 
where as the relentless a?id uncompromising foe of 
this tmgodly business, and that it is the duty of 
every Christian to wage ceaseless warfare against it. 

Presbyterian Chureh on Prohibition. 

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church, at its triennial session in Portland, Ore- 
gon, May and June, 1892, adopted the report of its 
Committee on Temperance, protesting against the 
legalizing of th£ liquor traffic in Alaska, and re- 
affirming the deliverances of former Assemblies, 
and branding the saloon license as a curse. The 
report adds : — 



74 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



"It is the sense of this Committee that, while it is 
not in the province of the Church to dictate to any 
man how he shall vote, yet the Committee declares 
that no political party has the right to expect the 
support of the Christian men so long as that party 
stands committed to the lice?ise policy, or refuses to 
put itself on record against the saloon. 

Utterances of Other Religious Bodies. 

Nearly all the different religious denominations 
liave made official utterances against the liquor 
traffic. Those utterances, more in detail than 
they can be given here, will be found in "The 
Cyclopedia of Temperance and Prohibition," 
under the name of the respective denominations. 
A few extracts will show the drift of these declar- 
ations : 

Lutheran {English Branch), June, 1887. — "The 
right, and therefore the wisest and most efficient, 
■method of dealing with the traffic in alcoholic liquors 
for drinking purposes is its suppression ; and we, 
therefore, also urge those who comprise the Church 
which we represent to endeavor to secure in every 
State the absolute prohibition of the vianufadure 
and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage." 

Baptist {through American Baptist Home Mis- 
sion Society), iSgo. — ''Resolved, That we declare 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 75 

ourselves among its {the liqucr traffic's) most relent- 
less foes, believing that it has no defensible right to 
exist. ' ' 

Roman Catholic {Baltimore Ple?iary Council), 
1 884.-5. — "We warn our faithful people who sell 
intoxicating liquors to consider seriously by how 
many a?id how serious dangers and occasions of sin 
their business — although lawful in itself— is sur- 
rounded. If they can, let them choose a more hon- 
orable way of making a living. ' ' 

United Presbyterian {General Assembly), 1S89. — 
" That any form of license or taxation of the liquor 
traffic is unscriptural in principle and contrary to 
good government. . . . That total abstinence is 
the only safe rule for the individual, and prohibi- 
tio?i by law of the sale of intoxicating liquors as a 
beverage the true method of dealing with this terri- 
ble evil by the State. ' ' 

Cumberland Presbyterian {General Assembly), 
i88g. — "That nothing short of constitutional and 
statutory prohibition of the manufacture and sale 
of intoxicating liquors as beverages, by the United 
States and the several States, will be satisfactory ; 
and to this end we will pray and work. ' ' 

I am indebted to " The Handbook of Prohibi- 
tion Facts/' as edited by Wilbur F. Copeland, 
and as published by Funk & Wagnall's, of New 
York, for the compilation of the above resolutions 



76 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 

of the Churches. The resolutions speak for them- 
selves, and are but the solemn breathings of the 
great denominations on this all-perplexing ques- 
tion. The resolutions, no doubt, are in perfect 
accord with the mind of Christ, and the only 
comment I wish to make may be clearly discov- 
ered in the following question : Where is the 
social and moral conscience of the Christian 
people, in passing such resolutions through their 
representative assemblies, while nearly ninety-five 
per cent, of the voting constituency of the 
Churches continued to cast their ballots for the 
political parties which favored the legalizing of 
the very evil against which the resolutions were 
directed ? 

Vile men in high places may continue, by stat- 
utory enactment, to authorize that which tends to 
create vice and immorality ; yet the day w T ill 
come, with the progress of a higher civilization, 
when the Supreme Court will declare the nefari- 
ous imposition unconstitutional. I believe the 
time has arrived for just such a decision ; and it 
affords me unbounded pleasure at this moment to 
arraign the entire license system relating to the 
traffic in strong drink as unconstitutional. While 
millions of our people were perishing under the 
ravages of the legalized plague, we were made to 
lament the conscienceless slowness of our nobler 



AXI) LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 77 

citizens to move for a redress of our grievances. 
The infernal traffic has already branded the curse 
of Cain on many faces, and when the unconsti- 
tutionality of the traffic shall have been estab- 
lished, it will require from three to four genera- 
tions of righteous living to emancipate the race 
from under the evil effects of the hereditary curse. 
We believe we have already succeeded in estab- 
lishing the fact that the saloon is a public nuis- 
ance, both in a legal and in a moral sense ; and we 
should have but little difficulty in convincing the 
court that it is unconstitutional to license a public 
nuisance. It might be well to repeat the fact that 
when once a public nuisance has been discovered, 
there is no recognized principle at law for dealing 
with the same that does not provide for its abate- 
ment. In entering into the real merits of the dis- 
cussion of this proposition, it is necessary to 
attain to a clear understanding of the relationship 
of the three general classes of law as it exists in 
God's plan, and as it must be received by all na- 
tions in the Millennial state. A careful study of 
the diagram which I now exhibit to the court, 
together with the analysis which follows, will 
make the whole matter clear to every careful 
observer. 



h++++++++++++ : F¥ : FFl-+W*R^+W- 



bHi±±±±±±±i±i±±±±±d 






GOD OVER ALL 

Christ is King ♦ The Bihle Law! 



<*¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ 



^W Wf ^w W» IW W» ^W Wj ^| *W ^5 ^^ 



#1 




V VI VII VIII IX X| 

{Rights of God j Rights of ManJ | 






AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 



The moral Liaua. 

The first section of this diagram, beginning at 
the bottom, is spoken of as the Divine Law. We 
have in mind the Decalogue, as is indicated by 
the Roman characters. The Decalogue is 

Iiacu of the First Order 

and in its two tables, in a perfect way, it ex- 
presses the rights of God and the rights of man. 
It is (speaking reverently) the briefest intelligible 
digest of the wisdom of God for the government 
of man in every sphere of human existence. It is 
the Christian basis of government. It is supreme 
organic; it is supreme perfect ; it is supreme inde- 
pende?it. It is master of all other law, and all 
other law is its servant. It should command all 
other law, and all other law should obey. It is 
supreme organic, because its Author is the Supreme 
Organizer of all things. It is supreme perfect, 
because its Author is the only all-wise Law-Giver. 
It is supreme independent, because its Author is 
the only self-existent, independent Law-Giver. It 
is law of the first order, because it was enacted 
by the Supreme Power of Heaven, and always 
commends right by prohibiting wrong. It is 
constitutional and universal, intended to govern 



80 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 

the hearts and lives of all people everywhere. It 
is "the perfect law of liberty," and should be 
recognized as supreme orga?iic law in all Christian 
countries. Being supreme perfect, when its pre- 
cepts shall be perfectly obeyed, it will absolutely 
free the country from all civil and criminal 
offenses. 

JVIa^im. 

It is absolutely impossible for a citizen in any 
country, under any form of government, ever to 
commit either a civil or criminal offense without 
it resulting either in a direct or indirect violation 
of one or more principles of the Decalogue. 

Hence, the Law of Christ, as is expressed in 
the Decalogue, covers man's entire conduct in 
every sphere of human existence, and logically it 
should be recognized everywhere as of supreme 
authority in civil matters. It is, in very fact, 
Law of the First Order. 

The court will observe wdiile I circumscribe 
the second section of the diagram. Within this 
section I have written 

Constitutional Liacu, 

which I designate as Law of the Second Order. 
I thus make law of the second order to rest logic- 
ally and securely upon law of the first order. 
The Constitution of the State and nation should 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 81 



be regarded as law of the second order, at least, 
until they be brought into perfect accord with 
law of the first order. The Constitution of the 
State and nation, not being the product of the 
mind of an all-wise law-giver, cannot logically 
rank above law of the second order. Thomas 
Jefferson and his associates, in preparing the 
Constitution of our country, were not all-wise. 
We have already rectified fifteen mistakes by as 
many amendments, in a little more than a period 
of one hundred years ; and it is possible that we 
may be able yet to rectify as many other mis- 
takes, before the Constitution — law of the second 
order — be brought into perfect accord with the 
Moral Law — law of the first order. Since law of 
the first order has continued for nearly four c 
thousand years without any one being -able to 
attach a single amendment, law of the second 
order should recognize the same as its master, 
and be made to rest thereon as the Christian basis 
of government. Hence, the logical and natural 
relationship which exists between law of the first 
order and law of the second order is that of master 
to servant. It is always the prerogative of a 
master to command and of a servant to obey. If 
law of the second order was made to recognize the 
law of Christ — law of the first order — as of 
supreme authority in civil matters, we would 



82 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



then have a constitutional guarantee for all our 
Christian usages, as well as constitutional pro- 
hibition of all the ills that afflict society. If the 
Christian people could be made to see clearly the 
great advantage of such relationship, I believe 
they would unite as one man to bring it to pass 
in the enactment of a Christian amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States. 

The establishment of such relationship between 
law of the first order and law of the second order 
is not only logical and natural, but it is absolutely 
necessary, that we may attain to the highest 
possible constitutional guarantee for all those 
statutes which, in defense of our Christian 
usages, are found to be in perfect accord with the 
law of Christ. Such relationship is also necessary 
for the speedy setting aside of all those statutes 
as unconstitutional which are in direct conflict 
with the law of Christ, and which prove so hurt- 
ful to society. 

The court will now observe while I bound two 
oblong figures, a little separated the one from the 
other, and both resting upon the Constitution, or 
upon law of the second order. I have written on 
one of these figures Statutory Law, and designated 
the same as Law of the Third Order ; I have 
written upon the other figure, Common Law, and 
designated this also as Law of the Third Order. 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 83 



Statutory and Common Liacu, 

While I am aware of the fact that in Great 
Britain, where there is no written constitution, 
the decisions of the King's Bench, which are often 
designated as the Common Law of England, are 
regarded as taking the place of a written constitu- 
tion. Yet, in our own country, where we have a 
written constitution, Common Law seems to 
admit of another definition, which would logically 
retire it to a parity with statutory law, which will 
account for our marking it the same as statutory 
law — law of the third order. 

Statutory and Common Liaca Defined. 

Statutory Law is enacted by our State Legisla- 
tures and by the Congress of the L nited States. 
All such enactments when executed, administered 
and enforced, to be law in fact, and to be constitu- 
tional, should, according to a directory principle 
in constitutional law, " tend to promote either the 
educational, the industrial, or the moral and 
social welfare of the people.-' If a statutory 
enactment proves to be detrimental to any or all 
of these interests, it is law in name only, and at 
the first opportunity it should be set aside as 
unconstitutional. 

Common Law in our countrv 'aside from the 



81 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



decisions of the Supreme Court) is the common 
acceptation of a principle on the part of the 
people, as though it were a statute, where no 
statute had ever been enacted relating to that 
particular principle. Hence this particular form 
of common law is on a parity with statutory law, 
and must be regarded as law of the third order. 
This diagram, as an eye-picture, presents to the 
court a clear and perfect analysis of the relation- 
ship of the three general classes of law as it exists 
in God's plan and as it must be received by all 
nations in the Millennial state. Then the Moral 
Law, or the Law of Christ, will everywhere be 
recognized as law of the first order. It will every- 
where be recognized as the Christian basis of 
government. . Then law of the first order will 
command law of the second order, and law of the 
second order will obey. Then law of the second 
order will command law of the third order, and 
law of the third order will obey. Then the 
prophetic song of the herald angels will be ful- 
filled in the culmination of the ultimate intention 
of Christ's advent into the world : " Glory to God 
in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will 
toward men." 

The court will now observe its own important 
place in the diagram. The figure in which is 
written Judiciary Decisions is in the form of 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 85 



the letter T, and represents the efficient and 
felicitous position of the Supreme Court. The 
lower end of the letter T rests, like Statutory and 
Common L,aw, upon the Constitution, indicating 
that all the decisions of the Supreme Court should 
be true to that foundation. The right and left 
arms of the letter T rest securely upon Statutory 
and Common L,aw and hold them to their founda- 
tion, indicating plainly that when the Supreme 
Court looks at a statute, or an ordinary principle 
at Common L,aw, it must view the principle in 
the light of the Constitution ; and if found to be 
true to the spirit and letter of that instrument, it 
must declare the principle constitutional and hold 
the same in sure contact with the foundation 
forever. When a statute or a principle of 
Common Law is found to be in violation of the 
spirit or letter of law of the second order, it is the 
duty of the Supreme Court to set it aside as 
unconstitutional. 

On this wise and unique plan, God is over all. 
Christ is the providential King over the nation ; 
and the Bible, in so far as it is applicable to 
nations, is law for the nation. Although, at the 
present time, there is no suitable recognition of 
Christ and His law in the Constitution, yet the 
Constitution, in the real spirit and intention of its 
preamble, affords ample grounds for declaring that 



86 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



the entire license system, authorizing the sale of 
intoxicating beverages, is unconstitutional. Do 
those statutory enactments which authorize the 
sale of intoxicating beverages, "when executed, 
administered and enforced, tend to promote either 
the educational, the industrial, or the moral and 
social welfare of the people " ? That is the great 
question which we ask this court to decide. Does 
it help to promote a man's educational interests 
for him to become an habitual drunkard in a 
licensed saloon ? Does it enable him to make the 
best possible use of the education which cost the 
State so much money to furnish to him ? Does it 
tend to promote his industrial interests ? Does it 
enable him to succeed so well in his vocation or 
industrial calling that his time and services will 
be everywhere in demand ? Does it tend to make 
him a better man, morally speaking, until he is a 
perfect example for our children to follow ? Does 
it fit him for the enjoyment of heaven ? These 
are some of the questions which an anxious world 
will expect you to answer when you hand down 
your decision. We will then understand whether 
the two hundred and fifty thousand licensed dram- 
shops in our country have really succeeded in 
"promoting the educational, the industrial, or 
the moral and social welfare of the two million 
five hundred thousand habitual drunkards which 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 87 



have been graduated from our licensed schools of 
anarchy. 

Every legislative enactment, therefore, which 
tends to subvert the educational, the industrial, or 
the moral and social welfare of the people, is not 
only in treasonable relationship to the real pur- 
pose of constitutional law, but may be regarded 
as a deadly thrust at the very life of the State. 
All such enactments are law in name only. It 
must now appear plain to every one that the stat- 
utes enacted by the several States and by Con- 
gress, authorizing the sale of strong drinks, are in 
treasonable relationship not only to every interest 
of society, but to the spirit and letter of the Con- 
stitution. Men may perpetrate treason against 
their country in two ways : First, by conspiracy, 
in a direct attempt at the overthrow of the Gov- 
ernment. Second, in the wilful enactment and 
administration of statutory measures in direct 
conflict with law of the first and second order. 
The most acute form of treason may be discov- 
ered in the conduct of the high official who is 
sworn to administer statutory measufes which are 
found to be in direct conflict with law of the first 
and second order. The Supreme Court has already 
decided that the principle of prohibition is consti- 
tutional in the Kansas cases, which were carried 
up by the liquor men. Can the opposite principle 



88 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



of license also be constitutional ? If two direct 
opposites, relating to one and the same question, 
are both constitutional, when viewed in the light 
of one and the same constitution, then anything 
between the opposites must also be constitutional. 
This being true, all things are constitutional ; and 
there can be absolutely nothing for a Supreme 
Court to set aside. Such fallacy in legislation 
would annihilate the necessity for the existence 
of a Supreme Court ; for there w r ould be nothing 
for a Supreme Court to set aside. Such a decision 
would render the Supreme Court as illogical as 
the great prophet Isaiah declared the children of 
Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to be 
when he exclaimed, "Woe unto them that call 
evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for 
light, and light for darkness ; that put bitter for 
sw T eet, and sweet for bitter." The Supreme Court 
has already commended right when it pronounced 
the prohibitory law of Kansas constitutional. The 
court must commend wrong and call evil good if 
it declares the opposite principle of license also 
constitutional. 

The friends and promoters of license have 
denounced the advocates of the principle of prohi- 
bition as ' ' cranks ' ' and ' ' fanatics. ' ' We will now 
classify those who must fall under such reproach- 
ful stigmas. First, the members of 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 89 



The Continental Congress. 

The Continental Congress passed the following: 
unanimous prohibitory resolution on February 27, 
1777, the year after signing the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence : "Resolved, That it be recommended to 
the several Legislatures in the United States, imme- 
diately, to pass laws the most effective to prevent the 
pernicious practice of distilling grain, by which 
the ?nost exte?isive evils are likely to be derived, if 
not quickly prevented." This was the unanimous 
resolution of the Congress of the United States, 
at a time when American patriotism had reached 
the high-w r ater mark. Yet, if those heroes of 
the Revolution had lived in the days of Canteen 
Griggs and "William the Silent," they would 
have been denounced as "cranks" and "fanatics," 
by the leaders of the dominant license parties. 
The resolution had behind it the same noble 
patriotism that inspired and prompted the Decla- 
ration of Independence during the preceding year. 
If the great statesmen — the early fathers and 
founders of our great republic — were resurrected 
to-day, and participated in directing the affairs of 
the State and nation, they would be compelled to 
join the ranks of the Prohibition Part} T . The 
present generation has fallen heir to the extensive 
evils which were anticipated in the above resolu- 
tion, because "the pernicious practice of distilling 



90 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



grain was not quickly prevented.' ' The Act of 
Congress which authorizes the collecting of an 
internal revenue from the distillers and brewers 
of our country is to be regarded as the voice of 
the dominant license parties, and as a part of the 
modern "all-wise, wholesome and well-directed 
temperance measures/' On every Fourth day of 
July, the leaders of the dominant license parties 
celebrate the patriotism of Washington, Adams, 
Jefferson, Hamilton and Hancock ; while, at the 
same time, they denounce their compeers in 
the grtat cause of prohibition as "cranks" and 
"fanatics." They shout themselves hoarse in 
praise of our prohibition fathers, and at the same 
time, they authorize the schools of anarchy, where- 
in were graduated the assassins of Moffet, Gam- 
brell and Haddock. " Woe unto you : for ye build 
the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers 
killed them. Truly, ye bear witness that ye allow 
the deeds of your fathers : for they indeed killed 
them, and ye build their sepulchres." 

Abraham Liineoln. 

Second : Abraham Lincoln must also be listed 
with the "cranks" and "fanatics." If he w r as 
resurrected to-day, he would be under the neces- 
sity of joining the ranks of the Prohibition Party. 
Hear that marvelous instrument — the phonograph 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 91 



— re-utter a section from the speech of Abraham 
Lincoln, as delivered by him on the 22d day of 
February, 1842 : ' ' Whether or not the world would 
be vastly benefited by the total and final banishment 
from it of all intoxicating drinks, seems to me not 
now an open question. Three-fourths of majikind 
confess the affirmative with their tongues; a?id, I 
believe, all the rest acknowledge it in their hearts. 
.... And, when the victory shall be complete — 
when there shall be neither a slave 7ior a drunkard 
07i the earth — how proud the title of that land which 
may truly claim to be the birthplace and the cradle 
of both those revolutions that shall have ended in that 
victory. Hoiv nobly distinguished that people who 
shall have planted and nurtured to maturity both 
the political and moral freedom of their species." 
If Abraham Lincoln was alive to-day, and should 
utter such heaven-inspired words in an inaugural 
address at the Capitol at Washington, he would at 
once become as prominent a target for the dagger 
or the bullet of an assassin as any of those who 
have fallen in martyrdom to the great cause of 
prohibition. 

Grove? Cleveland. 

Third: Grover Cleveland, the friend and pro- 
moter of license, was also a "crank" and 
"fanatic." Hear him in his annual message to 



92 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



Congress, in December, 1892 : " It being the plai?i 
duty of this Government to aid in suppressing the 
nefarious traffic, impairing as it does the praise- 
worthy and civilizing efforts now in progress in 
that region ; I recommend that an act be passed 
prohibiting the sale of arms and intoxicants to the 
natives in the regulated zone by our citizens." 

How are we to account for such a declaration, 
coming from a whiskey President, administering 
the affairs of the G3vernment upon a whiskey 
platform ? Perhaps he had become a fairy, with- 
out wings, for the time, and was transported in an 
air-ship to mid-ocean, a mile above the imaginary 
line that marks the neutrality of waters, where 
with great freedom he could declare that he was 
a citizen of no country ; where he could turn his 
face toward the shores of the Dark Continent and 
declare with all the buoyancy of an angel that the 
traffic in strong drink is "nefarious" when 
practiced upon the unconverted heathen, while 
"the praiseworthy and civilizing efforts" of 
the Christian church are being put forth for their 
conversion ; and then, turning his face toward the 
shores of our Christian republic, he could declare 
with the subtlety of the devil that the licensed 
traffic in strong drink was "all-wise, wholesome 
and well-directed," when practiced upon those 
who were already converted. 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 93 



If it be possible that the principle of license is 
"nefarious " when practiced by our citizens upon 
the dark-complected heathen while they are in the 
process of conversion, how does the same principle 
become " all-wise, wholesome and well-directed" 
when practiced by our citizens upon the fairer- 
skinned Caucasians who are already converted ? 

The Supreme Court of the United States. 

According to the past decisions of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, this august tribunal 
must also be classed with the "cranks' 1 and 
"fanatics," by the present living statesmen in 
our country. It must now appear evident to the 
Court that many of our modern statesmen, the 
associated press, and even many professing 
Christians are all so subsidized by the rum-power 
as to be ready to do its bidding in our national 
conventions, at the ballot box, in the halls of 
Congress and in the majority of our State Legis- 
latures. The iniquitous power of the traffic to 
corrupt all that is pure and good is a strong 
argument in support of the proposition that 
license is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court) 
when dealing with the Kansas cases, in justifica- 
tion of the prohibitory law, used the following 
language: " A public nuisa?ice may be abated. 
(The reference is in regard to the licensed saloon, 



94 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



or speak-easy.) Everything prejudicial to the 
health or morals of a city may be removed," " // 
is not necessary for the sake of justifying the State 
legislation, now under consideration, to array the 
appalliyig statistics of misery, pauperism and 
crime, which have their origin in the use or abuse 
of ardent spirits." The above utterances of the 
court, as I have already intimated, were called 
forth in defense of the prohibitory law of Kansas, 
and in opposition to the principle of license. In 
further procedure of the Kansas cases the Supreme 
Court used the following language : " We cannot 
shut out of view the fact, within the knowledge of 
all, that the public health, the public morals, and 
the public safety, may be endangered by the general 
use of intoxicati?ig drinks ; nor the fact established 
by statistics accessible to every one, that the idleness, 
disorder, pauperism, and crime existing in the 
country are in some degree, at least, traceable to 
this evil" 

This is the evil which a Canteen Griggs and a 
" William the Silent" did seek to encourage and 
condone. I presume that modern statesmen of 
this type would be ready to denounce the mem- 
bers of the Supreme Court as "cranks" and 
" fanatics," because of the above opposition to the 
principleof license, which the dominant politicians 
are accustomed to laud as " all- wise, wholesome 
and well-directed temperance measures." 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 95 



In the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in the case of California vs. Christ- 
iansen, the court used the following language : 
"There is no inherent right in a citizen to sell 
i?itoxicating liquors by retail ; it is not a privilege 
of a citizen of a State, or of a citizen of the United 
States. ' ' We understand that each citizen has the 
inherent right to " life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness." Our nation prides herself in a will- 
ingness to exhaust her resources in defense of the 
real rights of her citizens. The right to sell 
intoxicating liquors as a beverage is not a real 
right. Under the guise of right it is a tremendous 
wrong against "life, liberty and happiness." 

This is true in the case of every habitual 
drunkard. The sale of that which creates idle- 
ness, misery, destitution, pauperism, immorality 
and crime should be declared an enormous wrong, 
a public nuisance, and forever be set aside as 
unconstitutional. Men can claim to have an 
inherent right to sell that only which tends to 
promote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- 
ness." 

The Public Health and the Publie JVIorals 

Defended. 

The Supreme Court has said : " 1V0 legislature 
can bargaiyi away the public health or the public 



96 THE SA LOON A N I 'ISA X( 1 E 



7norals. The people themselves cannot do It, much 
less their servants. Gover?ime?it is orga?iized with 
a view to their preservation, and camiot divest 
itself of the power to piwide for them." — United 
States Supreme Court in Kansas eases. 

Thus we see that to license the traffic in strong 
drink is to barter away the public health, the 
public morals and the public safety. We see also 
that our public servants have undertaken to do 
what the people themselves have no right to do. 
We see, moreover, how the very functions of gov- 
ernment are perverted and prostituted to the 
fostering of disease, misery, idleness, pauperism, 
immorality and crime. Our officials, the public 
servants, have become the public masters, while 
the sovereign people have lost their sovereignty 
and are at the mercy of the official oligarchy. 
The government originally organized with a view 
to the preservation of the public health, the public 
morals and the public safety, is now under 
contract to barter these interests away for a 
corruptible and corrupting revenue. We pray 
the Supreme Court to-day to restore to the 
sovereign people the power which has been stolen 
and bartered away .by a subsidized hoard of 
usurpers. We ask the court to re-breathe one of 
its former Heaven-inspired utterances : " If, there- 
fore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to pro- 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 97 



tect the public health, the public morals, or the public 
safety, has no real or substantial relation to those 
objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured 
by the fundamental la7v, it is the duty of the courts 
to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Consti- 
tution.' ' We claim that the statutory enactments, 
authorizing and giving direction to more than 
two hundred and fifty thousand licensed dram- 
shops, do not tend to promote the public health, 
the public morals or the public safety, but the 
very opposite. We claim that all such enact- 
ments ' ' are a palpable invasion of rights secured 
by the fundamental law," and that "it is the 
duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby 
give effect to the Constitution." We not only 
believe the license measures to be a palpable inva- 
sion of rights secured by the fundamental law, 
but also that they are in direct conflict with every 
interest of society and with the spirit and letter of 
every principle of the preamble of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. But time and space 
would fail us in being able to cite the felicitous 
profusion of the utterances of the Supreme Court 
against the evils of the traffic in strong drink. 
We believe the above citations to be abundantly 
ample to convince the world as to the unconstitu- 
tionality of the iniquitous business. 
We have chosen to license 



98 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



The Direst Thing of the Ages. 

The direst thing of the ages is the most impious 
thing that the greatest age of light and oppor- 
tunity tolerates. For " men are judged according 
to the light they possess.' ' " To whom much is 
given, of him shall much be required. ' ' The direst 
thingof the ages exists now, and has thrown around 
it the shield of Governmental approval and protec- 
tion, in the midst of the most resplendent light 
that ever illumined the annals of time. Like an 
osseous cancer, it has fastened itself, as it were, 
upon the bone and tendon of the Church and 
State, and premonates death to both, if the dis- 
ease receive not heroic treatment, before the third 
and last stage of the malady be established. 
When we have carefully diagnosed the case we 
are able to discover from the semi-idiotic leer on 
many faces that the curse of heredity has sur- 
charged the life-fluid of men of every clime, every 
hue, every rank and station. If we should apply 
to them the term of lunatic, it would not be 
inappropriate. When we have diagnosed the case 
and we are asked the question, Doctor, what is 
the matter ? I would reply : It is a disease that 
affects the afflicted like the poison of asps. It is 
an insidious, deadly virus. The hold and reign 
of king Alcohol upon a world of nations is most 
ruinous. May God save both the Church and 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 99 



the State from dissolution and death, caused by a 
disease so appalling and loathsome. As the 
churches blush and hang their heads to-day for 
shame when the mantle is lifted but a little from 
their actions regarding human slavery, so will 
they in the days of our grandchildren be ashamed 
of the duplicity of their fathers in passing proper 
resolutions against the retail liquor traffic, and 
leaving them as far from moral enforcement 
and discipline as Michael left Lucifer after his 
nine days fall from Paradise. The churches of 
the future may wish that the unenforced resolu- 
tions of their fathers were buried so deep that 
Gabriel's trumpet would never resurrect them to 
accuse their authors in the final judgment. 
When God wrote resolutions He wrote them in 
lightning, announced them in thunder, and con- 
joined them with the discipline: "The nation 
and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish ; 

fjf yea, all those nations shall be utterly wasted." 

We now present a diagram showing most 

«• clearly the unreasonableness and unconstitution- 
ality of the liquor traffic, and the great interests 
that demand its immediate prohibition. 



+±±rrirfcifc:+±+4-+±±± 



■ r 



+^ 






i ^ 



11 r^^^u^^ 



+++fH-*-T^-H^4^^^^ 



fc± 



3B 






o 

1 <u 



EVERY^ 

NATIONAL, ♦ ♦♦ DOMESTIC [ 
PERSONAL^ INTEREST [ 

DEMANDS 

ABSOLUTE 



11= 



■ r- 

CD 
-J— > 
CO 

-u- » 

CO 

o 



CD 

s 

o 

Pi 

CD 



UHlHEDlflTE -S 

AND 

UfiCOfllDITIOflAIi 



■ Vs. 


■ BN 


a 


o 




CD 



O 



+ 



j PROHIBITION 



"co[ fe 

^ t i 

m 
m 



11 
Jj 

2 





• •> 




t-> 








*a 






w 


^=> 


CD 

> < 


ex 


M 


<2£. 


CO 


ec 


•=> 


■Ctf 


'-D 


hH 



flCGOHDflNCE 

WITH THE 

BIBLE 

AND THE 

PflEAlWBIiE 



= THE 



HJ 
Of 
tX 

UU 

-a 



CO 



Of 

i-a i- 

i 



H— 
B— 

* + 



CONSTITUTION. 



H--r 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 101 

Following the line suggested by the diagram, 
I this day contend that every national, domestic 
and personal interest demands the absolute, imme- 
diate and unconditional PROHIBITION of the traf- 
fic in strong drink, and this in accordance with the 
Bible and the preamble of the Constitution of the 
United States, as it should rest upon the MORAL 
LAW. I repeat that every true interest demands 
the prohibition of the traffic in strong drink. 
The Church; The State; The Home; The 
Mind; The Body; The Vocation; Union; 
Justice ; Tranquility ; Welfare ; Defense ; 
Liberty ; all of these great institutions, organiza- 
tions, causes, interests and principles, when taken 
together, in one grand chorus demand the abso- 
lute, immediate and unconditional PROHIBITION 
of the licensed traffic in strong drink in accordance 
with the Bible and the preamble of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States as it should rest upon 
the MORAL LAW. 

I append the following poem at the request of 
the Supreme Court. The court intimated that 
the pathetic language of the poem came to the 
mind of the members of the court like the voice of 
millions of fathers and mothers calling the one to 
the other, " O, which way will you have your boy 
togo?" 



102 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



Which Way Will you Have Your Boy to Go? 

O, which way will you have your boy to go? 

Two well-marked roads beyond do part, you know — 

The mountain-path — the straight and narrow way ; 

And the decline, where fogs and mists do play. 

That fair young form, your boy, will tread but one ; 

He cannot travel both, nor travel none ; 
Just over one he's bound to pass, you know ; 
O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 

O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 
Your boy may travel fast, or travel slow ; 

Yet travel must the way of peace and life, 

Or else the way of sin and shame and strife. 

The way where God is loved — where heart is pure, 

Or path of lust that leads to ruin sure ; 
Yes, over one he' s bound to pass, you know ; 
O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 

O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 
You know he' 11 run for weal, or run for woe ; 

He' 11 find the path that leads to yon bright home ; 

Or find the road to death — the sinner' s doom ; 

He'll find the fount where sin is washed away, 

Or find his vileness grow more vile each day. 
For over one he' s bound to pass, you know ; 
O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 

O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 

That fair and tender child you cherish so ; 
O, will you launch his bark on waters bright, 
And bid him watch for heaven' s beacon light ? 
Or have him guide his boat with wayward hand, 
And eat and drink and sport with drunken band ? 

For over one he's bound to pass, you know ; 

O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 



AND LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 103 



O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 

Dear mother, say : ' Tis God who wants to know. 
Our country opes a way that she should close, 
Lets demons crush our boys with mortal blows ; 
For by a license-law strong drink is sold, 
To fill our homes with death — her vaults with gold ; 

Yes, over one he's bound to pass, you know ; 

O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 

O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 
The drunkard' s swift descent far down below, 

Where vile debauch deforms the fairest life, 

Where man dishonors sister, mother, wife? 

Or royal road where all who walk are blest ? 

Dear father, say, which way do you think best ? 
For over one he' s bound to pass, you know ; 
O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 

O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 
Shall Jesus cleanse from sin — make white as snow ? 

Will you instruct his lips to temp' ranee mild ? 

Or have his passsons fired, his soul defiled ? 

He'll drink his wine, and quaff his demon bowl, 

And run with speed unto his dreadful goal : 
For over one he' s bound to pass, you know ; 
O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 

O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 

Beyond the clouds where crystal waters flow ? 
To sparkling seas — to thrones of glory bright — 
To mansions where the Saviour is the light ? 
Or far adown the slope of endless death — 
To drunkard' s grave — to prison house beneath ? 

For over one he' s bound to pass, you know ; 

O, which way will you have your boy to go ? 



104 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



SECTION VI. 

Mourning a Lost Cause. 

It is reported that when the time had arrived 
for the attorney in the defense to proceed with 
the closing argument, that he broke down com- 
pletely, claiming to be indisposed, and after 
requesting the court to carefully consider the 
cause of the defense from the brief by which the 
case was originally conveyed to the court, he sank 
into a seat, buried his face in his hands, and 
continued to weep and sob aloud as if his heart 
would break, until his friends were obliged to 
assist him from the court-room to his home, where 
he made the statement that he had determined 
never again to appear in the defense. Hence 
this page is appropriately set in mourning, and is 
entitled : 

Mourning a Lost Cause. 



AXD LICEXSE UXCOXSTITUTIOXAL. 105 



SECTION VII. 

Decision of the Supreme Court. 

Truth and justice are inseparably united. When 
truth looks down from Heaven, righteousness and 
justice should mutually kiss each other. The 
gradual infusion of truth into the hearts and souls 
of men is but the power of the spiritual forces of 
the unseen world lifting us into a higher and 
purer civilization. The court is cognizant of the 
fact, as presented by the prosecuting attorney, 
" that the Law of Christ, as it is expressed in the 
Decalogue, is the briefest intelligible digest of the 
wisdom of God for the government of men in 
every sphere of human existence." When men 
carefully observe and obey the first four great 
principles of the Decalogue, they truly respect 
God's rights ; and God's rights extend to every 
part of the universe. When men properly observe 
and obey the other six principles of the Decalogue, 
they are simply obedient to the perfect bill of 
human rights, and they remain free from com- 
mitting civil or criminal offences. The two tables 
of the Decalogue, when taken together, consti- 
tute "the perfect law of liberty ;"' because, when 
perfectly obeyed, it results in the highest type of 
liberty. While the Constitution of the United 
States is commonly regarded as the supreme law 



106 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



of the land, it is the plain duty of the Supreme 
Court, in agreement with the prosecuting attor- 
ney, to inform the people that the Moral L,aw is 
supreme organic, supreme perfect, supreme inde- 
pendent. Hence, the logical relationship of the 
human law to the divine must forever continue to 
be the same as that of servant to master. There- 
fore, we must come to recognize the law of Christ, 
in so far as it relates to nations and governments, 
as the final source to which appeal is made in all 
matters of jurisprudence. For Blackstone says: 
' ' That is not law which controverts the law of 
God." This appears to be the spirit of the 
unwritten constitution, as may be discovered in 
the hearts and lives of a large majority of our 
citizens, and should, at the earliest possible oppor- 
tunity, find suitable expression in the fundamen- 
tal law of the land. The court observes that the 
Christian character of our institutions indisputa- 
bly establishes the fact of the Christian character 
of the nation. Moreover, in order that we may 
be able in a more perfect way to protect the good 
order of society, and to promote every human 
interest, Congress and the several States have 
seen fit, either in a direct or indirect manner, to 
re-enact into statutory law every principle of 
the Decalogue. We wish to emphasize the fact 
that the proper enforcement of the principles 



AXD LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 107 



of the Decalogue is the surest guarantee to the 
highest type of liberty. We must come to 
recognize the law of Christ as the Christian 
basis of government, in order that we may 
succeed in the complete suppression of vice, 
immorality and crime. The evolution of the 
social conscience, in our land of Bibles and 
churches, has made such rapid progress that the 
glory of this, the second decade of the twentieth 
century, may be said to surpass that of the clos- 
ing decade of the nineteenth century almost as 
far as the light of day surpasses that of the night. 
The voice of a Piatt, a Quay, a Hanna and a 
Croker is no longer heard in our land. Our gov- 
ernors and presidents are no longer required to 
dance to the tune of the crack of the lash of 
political ringmasters. In view of these facts, the 
Supreme Court is unanimous in its opinion that 
the saloon is a public nuisance, both in a legal 
and moral sense ; and that the licensed traffic in 
strong drink is a palpable invasion of all human 
rights, an insult to the intelligence of man. and 
an unpardonable outrage upon every immortal 
interest. We also pronounce the entire system 
of license, relating to the traffic in strong drink. 
to be inimical to society, injurious to the home, 
the Church and the State, defiling even the black- 
est pages of history, and should be declared 



108 THE SALOON A NUISAXCE 



unconstitutional. It is that which has caused 
men in high places to laugh at abounding iniquity 
and to stand in the way of the progress of refor- 
mation. It has proved to be in direct hostility to 
"the educational, the industrial, the moral and 
social welfare of all the people." When suc'i 
perversion of the real intention of constitutional 
law appears in statutory enactment, it is the duty 
of the Supreme Court, when properly approached, 
to declare such sacriligious attempt at legislation 
unconstitutional, and thereby give effect to the 
Constitution. In view of the Diagram and all the 
interests it represents — interests of the most 
momentous character ; interests relating to the 
home, the church, and the nation ; interests per- 
taining to the soul and body of man, to his life 
here and hereafter ; interests extending through- 
out the vast eternity — in view of all this, and of 
the awful havoc wrought upon these interests 
by the retail liquor business, we are unani- 
mous in the opinion that the saloon is a public 
nuisance, both in a legal and in a moral sense; 
and that license, in so far as it relates to the traffic 
in strong drink, is unconstitutional. We there- 
fore call upon the government to suppress the 
saloon as a public nuisance. In support of this 
decision, and for the benefit of an anxious and 
expectant people, w T e append a few of the previous 
utterances of the Supreme Court : 



A XI) LICENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 109 



I. Xot an Inherent Right. 

There is no inherent right i?i a citizen to sell 
intoxicatiiig liquors by retail ; it is not a privilege 
of a citizen of a State, or of a citizen of the United 
States. — United States Supreme Court, California, 
vs. Christiansen. 

II. Can the Legislature Confer the 
Right ? 

No Legislature can bargain away the public 
health or the public morals. The people themselves 
cannot do it; much less their servants. Govern- 
ment is organized with a view to their preservation , 
and cannot divest itself of the power to provide for 
them. — United States Supreme Court, Stone vs. 
Mississippi. 

III. Can This Apply to License? 

For we cannot shut out of view the fact, within 
the knowledge of all, that the public health, the pub- 
lic morals, and the public safety may be enda?igered 
by the gejieral use of intoxicating drinks ; ?ior the 
fact, established by statistics accessible to every one, 
that the disorder, pauperism and crime prevalent in 
the coiuitry are, in so?ne degree at least, traceable to 
this evil. — United States Supreme Court in Kan- 
sas Cases. 



110 THE SALOON A NUISANCE 



IV. Thk Saloon a Source of Crime. 

The statistics of every State show a greater 
amount of crime and misery attributable to the use 
of arde?it spirits obtained at these retail liquor 
saloons than to any other source. — United States 
Supreme Court, California, vs. Christiansen. 

V. The Duty of the Supreme Court to 
Set Aside Such Measures. 

If therefore, a statute purporting to have been 
enacted to protect the public health, the public mor- 
als or the public safety, has no real or substantial 
relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of 
rights secured by the fu?idamental law, it is the 
duty of the courts to so adjudge, arid thereby give 
effect to the Constitution. — United States Supreme 
Court. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 279 919 2 



